Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SOUTH YORKSHIRE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL[Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Arab-Israel Dispute

Mr. Clappison: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards resolving the Arab-Israel dispute.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): There has been some progress towards resolving the Arab-Israel dispute since the Madrid conference in November 1991. The deportation of Palestinians last month is a setback. We are urging all sides to take the necessary steps, in accordance with Security Council resolution 799, to ensure that that does not disrupt the peace process.

Mr. Clappison: My right hon. Friend raises the question of the deportees. Does he not agree that movement on both sides of the Arab-Israel dispute is needed and, in particular, that the Palestinians need to undertake confidence-building measures to allay Israel's legitimate security fears, and that there needs to be a widespread willingness among Palestinians to take part in the peace process and to bring violence and extremism to an end?

Mr. Hurd: I certainly hope that the Palestinians will continue to take part in the talks with Israel and that they will consider carefully the proposals for an interim period of autonomy. However, if the Palestinians are to do that, there must be further action by Israel, with regard both to the deportation of Palestinians, which I have already mentioned, and to Israel's general practices in the occupied territories which my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State illustrated in a speech in Geneva yesterday.

Mr. Ernie Ross: What does the Foreign Secretary intend to do to build the Palestinians' confidence so that they will participate again? As the Israeli Government have demonstrated that they have no intention of moving in any way, shape or form towards the United Nations, what confidence can the Palestinian negotiators have? When we debated the issue a few weeks ago, I asked the Secretary of State what guarantees of safety he could give

members of the Palestinian delegation if they enter into the talks again while the deportees are still somewhere between Lebanon and Israel and the Israelis are still adopting against the Palestinian population measures that are wholly unacceptable to the international community?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is not right to say that Israel has made no move in any shape or form. On 1 February the Israeli Cabinet decided to allow 100 of the deportees to return, to halve the term of exile of the remainder, and to take various other measures. That is not sufficient, but it is a move in the right direction. I welcome the fact that American Secretary of State Warren Christopher is to visit the area next week and that the new American Administration have taken over the baton from the previous Administration and are clearly giving the peace process a high priority.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there is ever to be peace in that troubled part of the world, its history has to be taken into account and that the Egyptian Government's recognition in recent times that they have to live in peace with Israel is an essential ingredient which other Arab nations should take on board?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed; I agree with my hon. Friend. Equally, the Israeli Government have to accept, as they have done, the principle of United Nations resolution 242—"land for peace". Only on that basis will the peace process make progress.

Dr. John Cunningham: Is it not essential for the credibility of the United Nations, and for the confidence of the Islamic world in general, that we be seen to insist that the acceptance of United Nations Security Council resolutions is universally applicable? Is not the problem simply that Israel has set its face against any attempt to comply with Security Council resolution 799? Is it not also an error to try to fragment the solidarity of the Palestinians, as has been suggested, however much one deplores the activities of Hamas?
Finally, I ask the Foreign Secretary to condemn, as we do, the use of live ammunition by the Israeli security services in the occupied territories, especially against children. Is it not deplorable that a growing number of children are being killed as a result of those activities?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), the Minister of State, gave the figures to the European Commission of Human Rights in Geneva yesterday. It is reported that 216 children have been injured since 1 December 1992 and that 12 have been shot dead by Israeli defence forces. That is why I said what I did earlier.
The Israeli Government have partially moved towards compliance, but they have not complied fully with the Security Council resolutions. I hope that the Israeli Government will go further.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: If, two years ago, Iraq had withdrawn from only a quarter of Kuwait, would my right hon. Friend really have used the words that he has just used in the context of the Palestinian deportees about that situation? Is it not perfectly clear that when there is such a blatant breach of international law a little bit of persuasion is required, and pressure?

Mr. Hurd: I believe in persuasion backed by pressure. However, I do not think that my hon. Friend is right to equate the two circumstances absolutely. The aggression of Iraq against Kuwait and the decision to deport the Palestinians are both wrong, but they are different in character. The United Nations has taken different measures in respect of each and we wish to pursue the aims of the United Nations in respect of both.

UN Security Council

Ms. Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the future structure of the United Nations Security Council; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy concerning reform of membership of the United Nations Security Council.

Mr. Hurd: The increased effectiveness of the Security Council has renewed interest in its role. Several countries would like permanent membership. Any expansion in membership would require an amendment to the United Nations charter. Negotiations on this would be long and complicated. Our aim is to ensure that the Security Council continues to operate effectively. We would not favour any arrangement that undermined its authority or prejudiced the position of the United Kingdom.

Ms. Eagle: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the momentum gathering for Britain to lose its permanent place on the United Nations Security Council would not have built up if the Government had not delivered such a disastrous economic performance? Is it not the case that a third-rate economic performance means that we are now increasingly being regarded as third rate in the world at large?

Mr. Hurd: I do not know of anywhere except this country where it is suggested that we should lose our permanent seat. No such suggestion has been made by any of those who have suggested that new members should be added. The hon. Lady's conclusion is false and it is based on a false assumption.

Mr. Robathan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the arguments being advanced for a change in the composition of the Security Council are not new and that they are far less valid now than they were before, in view of the increased effectiveness of which my right hon. Friend speaks, as illustrated by the Gulf war coalition and in other United Nations operations around the world?
Does my right hon. Friend also agree that although economic performance is obviously important, the contribution made to United Nations forces by other countries does not match Britain's contribution? Indeed, some of the countries put forward as potential permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are conspicuous by their absence when it comes to United Nations operations overseas.

Mr. Hurd: Some of those countries have constitutional restraints. However, my hon. Friend is entirely right: the two countries doing the most on the ground for United Nations peacekeeping across the world as a whole are France and Britain, and the two countries doing the most

for United Nations peacekeeping in terms of getting supplies to the towns and villages of Bosnia are Britain and France. The facts that my hon. Friend gives put the theoretical arguments in some perspective.

Mr. Rogers: The Opposition, like the Government, support the aims of the United Nations. We should like its remit to be broadened politically and to be supported financially. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that if the United Nations is to retain our support and trust, it must behave even-handedly with regard to resolutions that it has passed and that if there is to be any restructuring, it should be carried out on the basis of considered debate and not on the basis of gratuitous comment by any country?

Mr. Hurd: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address that remark to those on the Opposition Back Benches, who seem to leap into the debate with very little regard to reality. I agree that a discussion has started and we cannot stifle that debate, but we have no intention of altering our own position as a result of it.

Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is easy to pass United Nations resolutions—the number has probably increased 20-fold in the past 20 years—but that if the United Nations is to retain credibility it must expand its influence and that influence must be backed by the support of its member countries? As my right hon. Friend said, far too few countries put their money where their mouth is.

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. As a result of the end of the cold war, quite suddenly over the past couple of years there has been a build-up in the number of conflicts in which the United Nations is expected, not least by hon. Members, to intervene. The difficulties of intervening effectively are clear: The resources of the United Nations—the assets available to the Secretary-General—are inadequate for the purpose.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many resolutions he has proposed to the Security Council in the last 12 months on matters relating to international security.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): Since 1 January 1992, the United Nations Security Council has adopted 83 resolutions: 67 concerned matters relating to international security; 11 specifically invoked chapter VII of the charter. The United Kingdom voted in support of all the resolutions. Members of the council, the Secretary-General and parties to the disputes engage in close consultations during the drafting of Security Council resolutions. The United Kingdom has played a full and active part.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In so far as the western powers appear to lack a strategy for getting rid of Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime in Baghdad, is it not time that the British Government promoted, within the Security Council, resolutions that would underpin the position of the Iraqi National Conference—that is to say, the Iraqi opposition?

Mr. Hogg: Our first objective must be to ensure that Saddam Hussein complies with the existing resolutions of the Security Council and, incidentally, with the no-fly zones—and that we propose to do.

Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the staggering number of resolutions passed in a single year reminds us all of the importance of maintaining strong armed forces? Does he further agree that the proliiferation of nuclear weapons in many of the trouble spots that the resolutions affect—in the long term, potentially including Iraq—further reminds us of the importance of keeping a full range of nuclear capability?

Mr. Hogg: On the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I agree. On the former part of his question, my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we deploy some 3,756 soldiers in United Nations peacekeeping operations and are the second largest contributor to such operations.

South Korea

Mr. Parry: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with South Korea.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): Our relations with the Republic of Korea are excellent. We look forward to a further strengthening of them during the next Administration in the Republic of Korea.

Mr. Parry: Given the good relationship that exists between the United Kingdom and South Korea, will the Minister consider using his influence by asking the South Korean Government to cancel the war games—Exercise Team Spirit—on the Korean peninsula for the sake of peace and detente?

Mr. Goodlad: We have consistently supported efforts to achieve peaceful reunification of the two Koreas, as has the hon. Gentleman. That can be achieved only through direct north-south contact. We were disappointed that the ninth round of bilateral prime ministerial talks was cancelled in December and we hope that talks will resume shortly.
Exercise Team Spirit, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is to be a routine defence training exercise involving United States and Republic of Korea forces. The purpose is to exercise combat readiness command control, host nation support and logistic support for the command that might be required to defend South Korea. The exercise, which is normally held annually in the spring, demonstrates the United States commitment to the defence of South Korea. It is a purely bilateral matter for the United States and South Korean Governments.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the so-called Democratic Republic of Korea is on the verge of economic collapse? Does he think that there is now a greater opportunity for both Koreas to unite for the benefit of their people and of world stability?

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend makes a very perceptive point.

Yugoslavia

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position on the conflicts in former Yugoslavia.

Mr. Hurd: We and our European Community partners are lending full support to the efforts of Lord Owen and Cyrus Vance. We believe that the plan that they have put forward offers the best prospect for a peaceful solution. We are following discussions in New York closely and taking part in them. We urge all the parties to negotiate seriously and to abide by the agreements reached at the negotiating table.

Mr. Williams: While accepting that the Vance-Owen peace plan for Bosnia is the only one on offer, what does the Secretary of State have to say to those in the new Clinton Administration who say that the proposals reward ethnic cleansing?

Mr. Hurd: We are waiting for the policy decisions of the new Administration. We have been in touch with them, and I had a good talk with Secretary Aspin last weekend. I believe that we shall shortly get a statement on the American position which will recognise the importance of the Vance-Owen process.

Sir Geoffrey Pattie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable anxiety and disappointment on the part of Bosnian refugee men living in Chertsey at their failure to be reunited with their families? Is he satisfied with the reception of processing arrangements in refugee camps in the former Yugoslavia?

Mr. Hurd: If my right hon. Friend will send me details, I will take up the Bosnian matter with my Department. I will also take up the matter of the refugees in his constituency with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
The record of the United Kingdom in receiving those who need to come here and who are nominated by international agencies to come here is a good one, but the main thrust of our effort must be to enable those who have been forced from their homes to survive and get through the winter as close to their homes as possible and then to return.

Sir Russell Johnston: In the area of conflict prevention, what action is being taken to reduce tension in Kosovo? Is it not time that we set aside Greece's anachronistic objections to the recognition of Macedonia?

Mr. Hurd: As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is much discussion going on in New York at present about the way in which that country could be admitted to the United Nations. That is the essential step and I do not despair of getting agreement on it fairly soon.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right: Kosovo is a dangerous spot. Everyone accepts that it is part of Serbia and everyone should accept that it is entitled to the sort of decent autonomy that it had before 1988.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that our troops are deployed in the former Yugoslavia not to fight a war but to deliver humanitarian aid? Will he take


this opportunity to congratulate our armed forces on performing a difficult and dangerous task with considerable success?
Earlier, my right hon. Friend said that the United Nations does not have the resources with which to fulfil its new role in the world as peacemaker and peacekeeper. In the light of the report of the Select Committee on Defence published this week, is he convinced that the United Kingdom has the resources to fulfil its role as a member of the United Nations Security Council?

Mr. Hurd: We have the resources to do what we are doing, which is very substantial. The United Kingdom is second only to France across the world in how we join in United Nations peacekeeping. We have more troops in Bosnia for the humanitarian purpose than any other country. The exercise was treated as perhaps rather negligible when it started, but, thanks to the work of the British troops, it has turned into the only piece of substantial good news to come out of that area this year. Hundreds of thousands of Bosnians, who all the experts predicted would die this winter, are being kept alive—partly because the weather is a bit milder than usual, but mainly because of the efforts of allied troops among whom the British are pre-eminent. Our troops have escorted 244 convoys, carrying 18,480 tonnes of food, medicine and other supplies to the towns and villages of Bosnia. The RAF has delivered 4,773 tonnes by air into Sarajevo.

Mr. George Robertson: May I add my tribute to our troops engaged in the humanitarian work in Bosnia? Reports came out over lunchtime that the Clinton Administration have decided on a deployment of troops for future peacekeeping in the area, combined with further aid and the possibility of a special envoy. We would welcome that as a supplement to the Vance-Owen proposals, not as a replacement for them.
Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the House expects him to continue to press for the continuing pursuit of those guilty of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia? The whole world has been revolted by verified reports of actions that clearly fall within the description of war criminality, especially reports of the systematic mass rape of women in that area. For the perpetrators of such obscenities there must never be a hiding place.

Mr. Hurd: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. We have emphasised that point repeatedly. The lawyers are now hard at work trying to overcome the difficulties in establishing an international tribunal for that purpose. I believe that that work has to bear fruit in the Security Council.

Sir Anthony Durant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that more should be done by the United Nations and the Western European Union to deal with sanction breaking in Yugoslavia, particularly the importation of oil by barges, which I believe is happening on a massive scale?

Mr. Hurd: I entirely agree with that. I discussed it with the Ukrainian Foreign Minister this morning and I have discussed it with the Romanians and the Bulgarians in the past week. For those of us who believe that peaceful pressures are crucial, it is important that those pressures should be effective, and they are increasingly effective on the Adriatic. The Romanians have begun to turn away barges loaded with oil bound for Serbia. It is crucial that

all the riparian states, Ukraine and, indeed, all the neighbours of Serbia should do their best to make those pressures effective.

Israel

Mr. Watson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to ensure that the Government of Israel complies with United Nations resolution 799.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We have repeatedly urged the Israelis to comply with United Nations Security Council resolution 799, most recently in a meeting berween Euopean Community Foreign Ministers and the Israeli Foreign Minister in Brussels on 1 February. The Israeli Government have now taken a helpful step in the right direction. We hope that they will build on this. We are urging all concerned that the top priority is to resume the peace process.

Mr. Watson: In answer to an earlier question today, the Foreign Secretary said that different measures had been adopted by the United Nations in respect of resolutions on Iraq and on Israel, as indeed they have: the resolutions in respect of Iraq were speedily enforced, but those in respect of Israel have never been enforced. It is now eight weeks since resolution 799 was adopted unanimously, demand-ing that all the deportees be returned to their homes as quickly as possible. The Foreign Secretary and his Ministers must be aware of Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali's report to the United Nations Security Council last month on the enforcement of resolution 799, which finished with a strong recommendation that whatever—

Madam Speaker: Order. I must have a question from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Watson: I am coming to it, Madam Speaker. The point is—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question now.

Mr. Watson: My point relates to the Secretary-General's report—

Madam Speaker: Order. It is Question Time. I insist on a question being put. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can ask his question.

Mr. Watson: Will the Foreign Secretary and his Ministers ensure that the Secretary-General's report of last month, which demanded that the deportees be returned home as soon as possible and that whatever measures are necessary should be taken immediately, is endorsed and that fellow members of the Security Council are encouraged to ensure that that happens as speedily as possible?

Mr. Hogg: As my right hon. Friend made plain, we regard the deportation of 450 people as a gross breach of the fourth Geneva convention and a gross infringement of human rights, and that is why we support resolution 799. As my right hon. Friend described, the Israelis have taken a welcome step forward, but it is only a step forward. We expect them to comply with resolution 799 and we shall do our best to induce that to happen.

Mr. Bowis: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is no justification in international law or international morality for Israel to deport people from the land that it occupies to a third country? Does he accept that it is not the first time that that has happened but just the most dramatic example? Will he ensure that this country and the world community keep the pressure on Israel to come back into the community of nations, by ceasing that practice and restoring every last one of those people to their homeland?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a good deal of sense. As I said in reply to the previous question, there is no doubt that the deportation was a gross violation of human rights. It was unlawful and we have criticised it in many ways, including resolution 799. As my hon. Friend has said, this is not the first example of such a violation and our view is that deportation must stop and that Israel must comply with resolution 799, which we supported.

Mr. Galloway: Since I have just returned from the area, will the Minister accept from me that people in the occupied territories are in the depths of despair about the failure of the powers to do anything about making Israel implement resolution 799? The fine words that he has spoken today are all very well, but when will the Governments and powers do something about it? Is the Minister aware how isolated and vulnerable the Palestinian negotiators in the territories are, as they have asked their people to put faith in the peace process and international diplomacy? Lastly, the Secretary of State said a few weeks ago that he would not meet the Palestine Liberation Organisation because he was not convinced of the usefulness of so doing. Is he aware how useful it is to the forces of extremism and reaction in the Palestinian arena that he does not do so?

Mr. Hogg: I am trying to pick up the central theme of the hon. Member's multi-headed question. I agree that the Israelis' actions in deporting the deportees did a grave disservice to the peace process in the middle east and encouraged the forces of extremism. For that reason and for many others, we very much hope that the Israelis will rapidly comply with resolution 799.

Nigeria

Miss Emma Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Nigeria.

Mr. Hurd: My noble Friend Baroness Chalker of Wallasey and I have each recently visited Nigeria. Relations between our two countries remain close and we look forward to a smooth transition to civilian rule in August.

Miss Nicholson: Can the Secretary of State assure me that Her Majesty's Government will do everything possible to ensure a smooth transition? After all, the President pulled back from the transition to democracy some months ago and is now talking about August 1993. Can he also assure the House that he will do everything possible to encourage the President to come to an agreement with the International Monetary Fund, as the last agreement lapsed in April 1992, which has created year-end inflation in August 1992 of 51 per cent?

Mr. Hurd: Those are both important matters. I was encouraged by my talks in Nigeria, both with the President and with members of the new civilian transitional council, under a remarkable Nigerian and friend of this country —Mr. Shonekan. A smooth transition to civilian rule is essential and I believe that it will happen. As my hon. Friend said, the economic situation is more intractable. We shall continue to encourage the Nigerians to come to reasonable terms with the IMF.

Mr. Corbyn: In his discussions with representatives of the Nigerian Government, did the Foreign Secretary raise the question of Nigerian participation in the west African force in Liberia? Did he ask them about the objectives of that force and what is being achieved in Liberia, where the most terrible civil conflict is taking place, with masses of casualties? Does not he think that a ceasefire must be brought about in that country and can Nigeria help with that?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed, I discussed that issue, and the hon. Gentleman's account is correct. Nigeria leads a number of west African countries that have forces in Liberia and are trying to bring the fighting to an end and restore stability to that tormented country. They have been frustrated at their lack of success so far. Since then, I have discussed with one or two people how the international community can help those countries and help to bring about a return to peace in Liberia.

Malawi

Sir George Gardiner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the fairness of the referendum being planned in Malawi on whether to allow multi-party elections.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): If the referendum is to carry any credibility, it is essential that it should be conducted under conditions that are acceptable to the United Nations and to those groups in Malawi advocating democratic reform.

Sir George Gardiner: We all welcome the deferral of Malawi's referendum in accordance with the recommendations of the United Nations technical team. However, does not my hon. Friend deplore the fact that the Malawi authorities have still not agreed to the United Nations recommendation that there should be one ballot box for all votes, not one ballot box for yes votes and one ballot box for no votes? Does he not deplore the fact that the Malawi authorities have ignored the United Nations recommendation that an independent referendum commission should be appointed? Worst of all, those authorities have ignored the United Nations recommendation that the laws that allow for detention without trial should be suspended during the conduct of the referendum campaign. Is that not a travesty of democracy?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The British Government are also pleased that the date of the referendum has been delayed. I agree with my hon. Friend about the many shortcomings that he has identified. Clearly, the referendum must be held in conditions of which the United Nations approve if the Malawi Government are to seek to have further aid from


aid donors in future. The United Nations must be satisfied of the conditions, as must all reasonable people such as my hon. Friend.

Mr. Grocott: Does the Minister agree that a pre-requisite of any free election and referendum should be freedom of speech, freedom to campaign, hold meetings, issue leaflets and freedom from fear? Certainly there should be no political detainees. What steps are the Government taking through the Commonwealth to ensure that those conditions begin to obtain in Malawi? Does the Minister agree that it stretches credulity to think that there could be a referendum in Malawi as early as next month and that the conditions could obtain by then?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The referendum will not be next month. President Banda has announced that it is to be in June, which is what we have just been discussing. The hon. Gentleman is clearly right—much progress much be made towards achieving conditions that the United Nations and ourselves believe are reasonable for a referendum and for human rights. There has been a little progress on that in Malawi, but we want to see much more. The hon. Gentleman is right to identify those matters and put pressure on the Malawi Government to come to their senses.

British-American Relations

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to meet President Clinton to discuss British-American relations.

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is looking forward to meeting President Clinton in Washington on 24 February.

Mr. Burns: When my right hon. Friend meets President Clinton will he reiterate to him the importance of the special relationship between the United States and Britain? Will he make it plain to the new President that many people, not only in the United States, but in this country, have high hopes for his personal success and that of his presidency? It is crucial that we have free trade, job creation and economic recovery, which are of paramount importance to both countries.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The first contacts with the new team have gone well. There has been no interruption in our discussions with the United States Administration on former Yugoslavia, Iraq, the Arab-Israel position and the urgent need for the general agreement on tariffs and trade to fulfil the aims outlined by my hon. Friend. The new President carries a huge burden and I think that everyone with goodwill and good sense will wish him well.

Dr. Godman: Is it likely that the President of the United States will be warned against sending a peace mediator to Northern Ireland? Will he be told that that may cause more harm than good? Are not the days of the American interventionist role in western and northern Europe coming to an end?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think it likely that the new United States Administration will propose a mediator as regards Northern Ireland, but we are doing our utmost, as indeed are the Government in Dublin, to acquaint the new

American Administration with what is happening in Northern Ireland and in particular with the efforts of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make progress on the constitutional side.

Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister also encourage the American Administration to get the European Community to play a greater role in the middle eastern peace process and to provide more wisdom, judgment, experience and balance, as well as reminding them of the need to avoid obvious mistakes?

Mr. Hurd: I am not sure that that exact pitch would work very well in Washington. One of the good things that have happened is that the new Administration have declared that the peace process started by Jim Baker should continue and should be a priority. That is why Secretary Warren Christopher is going to the area next week. I look forward to meeting him immediately after that. If we in Europe can help, we should do so. We can encourage and apply pressures, as we have discussed in the House already this afternoon. I do not think that we should seek to complicate the task or take the place of the United States so long as they give the peace process priority.

Dr. John Cunningham: May I warmly welcome the Government's new determination to develop a warm relationship with the Clinton Administration, having previously worked to prevent President Clinton's victory in the election? May I stress that we share the view that it is very important for us in terms of trade? We do not want to descend into a trade war with the United States of America. We want to see final approval of the GATT agreement and we want to see the United States of America playing a positive role in support of the peace process in the former Yugoslavia. All those are important matters on which Britain and the United States of America share interests. I wish the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister well in their discussions with President Clinton and his team.

Mr. Hurd: I am sure that the Prime Minister will be obliged. Thank you.

Poland

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his polish counterpart to discuss economic development in Poland.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs takes every opportunity to discuss economic and political developments with the Polish Foreign Minister. He last did so at the CSCE meeting in December last year.

Mrs. Gorman: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had a chance to discuss with the Polish economic administration the findings set out in an excellent article in The Economist which point out that while the public sector of the economy is stagnating, the private sector is going ahead by leaps and bounds, because the Government are fragmented, the administration is weak, taxes are therefore difficult to collect and bureaucracy is almost non-existent? As a result, the private sector is now employing 60 per


cent. of the work force and accounting for half of the gross national product. Does not my right hon. and learned Friend think that we could learn a thing or two from the Poles?

Mr. Hogg: I am glad to say that through our policy of the know-how fund, the Poles have learnt a thing or two from us, particularly the virtues of privatisation.

Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Minister explain why there is a disparity between Poland, Hungary and the two states that formerly constituted Czechoslovakia in terms of guarantees for credit for the medium and long term? Why are we discriminating against Poland and why do we have a mealy-mouthed approach to supporting and sustaining a fragile democracy and economy?

Mr. Hogg: One of their problems when negotiating the budget within the Parliament is to secure sufficient agreement to ensure that the deficit does not exceed 5 per cent.

Bophuthatswana

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has recently received about Bophuthatswana; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The most recent representation was from my hon. Friend.

Mr. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should have an even-handed policy towards all responsible leaders in southern Africa? Will he accept that President Lucas Mangope has led his country in southern Africa for 15 years, a country which is multi-racial and has had democratic elections a number of times since it established its independence? When President Lucas Mangope visits the United Kingdom, will my hon. Friend arrange for a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister to meet him?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government do not recognise Bophuthatswana. Therefore, it would not be right for a Foreign Office Minister to meet Mr. Mangope—although, as my hon. Friend knows, there have been contacts at an official level. The future constitutional arrangements for South Africa must be a matter for the South African people to decide, in accordance with their constitutional negotiations. I am glad that the Bophuthatswana Government participated in CODESA 2 and I hope that they will participate in future Convention for a Democratic South Africa negotiations.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Minister recognise that his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) backed the wrong parties in Angola? Now, because of that sort of backing, the butcher Savimbi is running wild in Angola. The hon. Gentleman also backed the wrong horse in Namibia. Therefore, will the Minister disregard his hon. Friend's representations and instead listen to the people of South Africa, who want a unified, democratic South Africa as quickly as possible? What are the Government doing to help to achieve that?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It does not really help if the House tries to decide the constitutional arrangements for South Africa. It is for the people of South Africa to decide through CODESA when it reconvenes.

Balkans

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the prospects for peace in the Balkans.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We are our EC partners have made clear our unequivocal support for the work of the international conference for the former Yugoslavia. Its success would be a significant step towards securing stability throughout the Balkans. We are also working to prevent the conflict spilling over into Kosovo or Macedonia and to provide humanitarian relief to those caught up in the fighting.

Mr. Arnold: Is not it precisely because both Kosovo and Macedonia have all the characteristics of a tinder box that the Owen-Vance peace process must be successful and, above all, complied with by the warring parties? Should not we and other countries do our damnest to put pressure on those parties to comply?

Mr. Hogg: To use my hon. Friend's phrase, we are doing our damnest. However, he is right to draw attention to the special problem of the minorities in the former Yugoslavia. We have rightly focused on the question of Bosnia, but we must also pay special regard to the issues of minorities in Serbia, including Kosovo, and also in Croatia. Their rights must be secured as part of any overall settlement.

Mr. Winnick: Could Ministers be a little stronger about what steps will be taken by the international community to bring to justice those who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said, are undoubtedly involved in terrible crimes? People who have read the articles by Robert Fisk in The Independent have been horrified by the systematic torture and rape of Muslim women. Those responsible should face an international tribunal, and that should not be years away.

Mr. Hogg: It is an extraordinarily difficult and important point, because there is no doubt that the most ghastly crimes have been committed in the former Yugoslavia. We assert, and will continue to assert, that those who commit such crimes, either directly or indirectly, should be held personally accountable. However, there is another problem, which the hon. Gentleman will wish to bear in mind. If the authority—the responsibility—for those crimes goes as high as the hon. Gentleman and I expect, we must ask ourselves what is the priority: is it to bring people to trial or is it to make peace? That is the sort of tension with which we must deal.

Japan

Mr. Batiste: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next meet his Japanese opposite number to discuss bilateral relations.

Mr. Hurd: I hope to visit Japan in early April and I am in touch with the Japanese Government about that. I welcome the opportunity that that will give me to discuss


with the Japanese Foreign Minister our relations with Japan and the whole range of international issues affecting our two countries. We shall also meet at the economic summit in Tokyo in July.

Mr. Batiste: My right hon. Friend's visit will be most timely, as about 200 Japanese companies are now manufacturing in the United Kingdom, directly providing 50,000 jobs, contributing extensively to our balance of trade and reinforcing our manufacturing base. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the Japanese that this Government—unlike the Opposition—remain committed to the policies that have, over the past 10 years, made the United Kingdom the most popular and sensible location for high-quality inward investment in the European Community?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We have 41 per cent. of Japanese investment in the European Community—partly because we fought hard and successfully to secure free circulation within the single market of products manufactured in the United Kingdom by companies owned in Japan. Japanese companies also bring to this country important research and development. More than 30 of the Japanese firms that my hon. Friend mentioned have research and development units here.

Mr. Skinner: Why does not the Foreign Secretary admit that the real reason that Japanese companies come to Britain and have factories here is because, as with Nissan in Sunderland, they can pick up £300 million of taxpayers' money to set up a factory with no-strike agreements, with only 10 per cent. of the work force being trade union members? They pinched the jobs of other car workers in other parts of Britain. The truth is that the Japanese Government have taken the British Government for a ride, because our balance of trade deficit with Japan is about three times higher than the value of goods that we send to Japan, yet Japan was the nation which was reckoned to have lost the war—and Germany is running a close second.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in this —Japanese firms, and those whom they employ in this country, are benefiting from the reforms and changes that this Government brought to British industry. That is part of the reason why Britain is attractive to Japan, and a large part of the reason for rejecting the nostrum of the social chapter.

Israel

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet the President of Israel when he visits Britain in February to discuss relations between the United Kingdom and Israel.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will call on President Herzog during his visit.

Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that peace and mutual understanding in the middle east would be improved if long-standing hostages such as Ron Arad were released? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he has been kept incommunicado by

Arab captors as a prisoner of war for seven years, against all the rules of the Geneva convention? Will representations be made to secure his immediate freedom?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a real point. If Ron Arad is still alive—we thought some two years ago that he was, but we have no up-to-date information—it is extremely important that he be released with all possible speed. The same proposition applies to detainees in south Lebanon. One must acknowledge that the business of holding people without due process of law is intolerable and should stop.

Rev. Martin Smyth: When the Secretary of State meets President Herzog will he make clear to him that, as President Herzog was born in Belfast and reared in Dublin, there is tremendous empathy between our nation and Israel? While we are concerned about detentions in Israel and in the Lebanon, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the standards of justice of Israel's Supreme court are held in high esteem throughout the world?

Mr. Hogg: As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, President Herzog is held in the highest esteem in this country, and also in great affection. As to the Supreme court—yes, its reputation is high, but we must acknowledge also that Israel's policies within the occupied territories need to be rigorously criticised because they frequently constitute gross breaches of human rights. I took the opportunity to say that in Geneva yesterday to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

East Timor

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will visit Indonesia to make representations about human rights violations in East Timor.

Mr. Goodlad: No. the Indonesian authorities are well aware of our views on the human rights situation in East Timor. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised the subject when he met the Indonesian Foreign Minister in Manila in October, as did I—and as I also did when I visited Indonesia in October. As appropriate, we will take suitable opportunities to do so again in future.

Mr. Jones: Indonesia is not a country at the centre of the world stage and world interest. Does the Minister agree, however, that human rights violations carried out in Indonesia are as important as those carried out in countries that attract more international interest? Does he agree that such violations are more severe in Indonesia than in many other areas? In East Timor, the Government have killed an even larger proportion of the population than were killed by Pol Pot in Cambodia. When will the Government be prepared to act against Indonesia? When will they stop selling goods to the country and stop dealing with its Government?

Mr. Goodlad: The hon. Gentleman is right: Indonesia is an important country. It is an important member of ASEAN—the Association of South-East Asian Nations —and is now chairman of the non-aligned movement.
We and our European partners continue to be concerned about the human rights situation in Indonesia


and East Timor and we have made our views known to the Indonesians on numerous occasions. We remain profoundly concerned about reports of large numbers of deaths over the years, but we believe that some of the figures have been exaggerated. We believe that constructive dialogue is the most effective way of influencing attitudes and encouraging improvement; we do not think that cutting off trade, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, would help the people whom he presumably wishes to help.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, far from being unimportant, Indonesia is the fourth largest country in the world and the world's biggest Muslim nation? Is he aware that after the deaths in East Timor —which clearly inspired the question—the Indonesian regime set up a commission of inquiry, as a result of which some army officers were disciplined and others removed from the armed services? Should not regimes such as Indonesia's, which is trying to improve its human rights record, receive due praise for the steps that it has taken, rather than being denigrated by ignorant Opposition Members?

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is quite right. The Indonesian authorities behaved in an unprecedented manner after the Dili atrocities in bringing those responsible to trial. My hon. Friend is also right in saying that continuing bilateral relations with what is, after all, a very important country, and continuing to provide that country with trade and aid, is the most likely way of bringing about an improvement in human rights, as we all wish to do.

Mr. Tony Banks: May I say that I am quite surprised that the Minister, for whom I have some regard, is prepared to be such a snivelling apologist for the Indonesian regime? Where is the morality in British foreign policy nowadays? Is it not outrageous that the British Government should be prepared to supply arms to the Indonesian regime, in view of the human rights abuses in East Timor? Will the Minister make representations to

Helmut Kohl, who, I understand, is at this moment preparing to sell large amounts of the old East German navy to the regime?

Mr. Goodlad: As I have said, we and our European partners are deeply concerned about human rights in East Timor and have pulled no punches in making our views known. The expression employed by the hon. Gentleman is entirely inappropriate in this context. No one has been firmer than we have.
As for the hon. Gentleman's question about defence sales, all sovereign states enjoy the right to defend themselves, under article 51 of the United Nations charter. Applications to export British defence equipment are carefully scrutinised. We do not allow the export of arms or equipment likely to be used primarily for repressive purposes against civilian populations. In the case of Indonesia, this criterion extends to the possible use against the civil population of East Timor. We do not believe that an embargo on defence sales to Indonesia would be an appropriate or effective way of influencing the Indonesians to engage in better behaviour in the field of human rights.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Irrespective of the regional importance of Indonesia, will my right hon. Friend confirm that originally—after colonial rule—Indonesia occupied East Timor by force and that throughout the past 15 years its record on human rights, regardless of Dili, has been quite deplorable? Will my right hon. Friend do all he can, through the United Nations and the European Communities, to ensure that the voice of East Timor is heard—either directly or, as has been offered, indirectly through the Vatican—in negotiations towards a constitutional solution to this very difficult problem?

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is quite right. Unlike a very large number of other countries, this country did not recognise Indonesia's annexation of East Timor. We continue to believe that the question of East Timor's status and future is best addressed through the auspices of the United Nation's Secretary-General and through contacts between Portugal and Indonesia, and we continue to encourage those concerned to pursue the dialogue in which they are engaging.

Apple Juice (Safety)

Dr. Gavin Strang: (by private notice): To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the safety of apple juice currently on sale in Great Britain.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has the most comprehensive food surveillance programme in the world. It has been operating for 20 years, and 12 working parties constantly monitor the food supply in a co-ordinated national programme, overseen by the steering group on chemical aspects of food safety, for many hundreds of different contaminants. All the results of the Ministry's surveillance work are routinely published, together with the commentary on any health implications that may have come to light. In all, 34 detailed reports have been placed in the public domain. The report of which this particular survey forms a part is already in the course of being produced. It will be published next month.
Patulin is a naturally occurring toxicant that has been with us since the creation. It is produced by moulds. Apples have always been prone to this particular mould. Therefore, our surveillance programme has of course examined apple juice on several occasions in the past to determine patulin levels. On the last occasion, in June 1992, four samples contained higher levels than were expected on the basis of the previous surveillance. The results were considered by the scientific and medical specialists in the Ministry and the Department of Health, who considered that the levels did not pose an immediate hazard to health but that they should be referred to the Government's independent expert committees and then published in the usual way.
The results were referred to the Committee on Toxicity, the independent expert committee whose membership comprises some of the leading toxicologists in the land. The Government look to these top independent scientists for toxicological advice. The committee did not consider that the patulin results showed a need for any products to be withdrawn from sale, but recommended as a matter of prudence that steps should be taken to reduce the levels to the lowest technologically achievable.
In the light of that entirely independent and expert advice, the Ministry's chief food scientist called in representatives of the industry to explore the options for achieving that. He stressed the need for improved quality control measures to be taken to ensure the lowest possible levels, and various action levels were explored and considered in great detail.
The matter was then put to the independent Food Advisory Committee at its next two meetings. The published agendas of the committee make it clear that this matter was under consideration. The committee recommended that patulin levels should not exceed an action level of 50 parts per billion and that the position should be reviewed in the light of further data.
Following advice from the Food Advisory Committee, I called in the industry in December and explained the advice that we had received. The industry had already started to react to the earlier findings of the Committee on

Toxicity. The Ministry's follow-up sampling planned for this spring is deliberately timed so as to look at apple juice made from apples made from last season's crop that have been in store for the maximum period—that is, we are studying the worst case possible.
Whenever the Government have proper, scientifically substantiated evidence that the public is at risk, immediate action is taken, as in the case of dioxins in milk, lead in animal feedingstuffs and milk and the closure of shellfish beds during contamination by algal toxins. This is not the case with patulin, which on the best toxicological advice available to the Government did not constitute an immediate hazard to health. Nevertheless, our prudent action is designed to minimise a natural problem that has been with us since Adam ate the apple and thus made a career decision.
We should not forget that apple juice is a useful source of vitamin C, and no good purpose whatever is served by creating quite unnecessary public alarm and confusion.

Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware that he has not justified the Government's failure to act last year? I tell Conservative Members who seem to think that this is a laughing matter that the fact that a substance occurs naturally does not mean that it is not toxic or dangerous to human health. The Minister has not denied that patulin can cause cancer and other life-threatening conditions. He has not denied that the tests conducted on behalf of the Ministry last year showed that, in some apple juices, levels were above the safety standards laid down by the World Health Organisation and the Ministry. Does he not realise that, when the test results were known, the Government should immediately have made them public and taken steps to remove all toxic apple juice from the shelves?
Is the Minister trying to discredit the Government's own safety standards in this area? Where is the open government policy now? Does not this show the need for a freedom of information Act and for an independent food standards agency? How can we be sure that the Minister is not showing the same negligence about other food safety standards? Is it not clear from the Minister's failure last year to take apple juice off the shelves and to make the information public that Britain's food is not safe in his hands?

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman cannot be taken seriously. It is not often that one hears such an injudicious blend of malice, ignorance and prejudice. We have acted throughout according to the best scientific advice available in the land. Food safety standards in this country are the highest in the world, and the hon. Gentleman does no service to the consumer or to the food industry by such ridiculous and idiotic scaremongering.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend assure the young woman who telephoned my constituency office this morning and who is expecting a baby shortly that she need have no fears for the baby or herself?

Mr. Soames: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am happy to give the absolute assurance that that is the case.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister must not be too defensive about apple juice, but


should, like me, be a great advocate of the apple, and of apple juice and tell the House that he will drink it often in the future, even if he has not done so in the past.
There is one important issue. As I understand it, the report of what was a perfectly routine survey was concluded in June and the drinks manufacturers was first told of it in July. Will the Minister consider revising the process so that in future, if such a report might cause concern if it were made known informally, as has happened in this case, it would be best at that time to give the public the facts about what was found together with the reason why they should not be concerned?

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he approaches the issue. It is true that after each incident of this type it is perfectly proper for the Government to consider what has happened in the past and what steps they should take if necessary to restore and improve public confidence in such testing. We shall certainly consider carefully the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
As for the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am a very big drinker of apple juice.

Mr. Paul Marland: Does my hon. Gentleman agree that the Opposition are indulging in scurrilous scaremongering based on gross exaggeration? There are not thousands but millions of people outside the House who will have been greatly reassured by what my hon. Friend has said not only in the Chamber but on Radio 4 this morning, when he explained carefully exactly what patulin is and the effects that it could have if taken in enormous doses. It is a very difficult row to hoe to decide between over-regulation and the appropriate regulation in which his Department should indulge. Over-regulation seems to be something that the Labour party craves—

Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps I could guide the House: hon. Members should put questions to the Minister, not make statements. If the hon. Gentleman will put a question to the Minister, I shall hear it.

Mr. Marland: Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations of his colleagues on getting the balance exactly right?

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but the people to whom his congratulations should be directed are the scientists who so skilfully and carefully carry out surveillance across the food chain 365 days a year, which gives us such a high standard of integrity in our food industry. As for regulation, my hon. Friend raises an important issue. No regulation should take place if it is not directly proportionate to the risk involved.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The Minister will be aware that the House does not usually associate him with the feminist cause, but he will no doubt be recognised as having made a contribution to it as he appeared to state that patulin rather than Eve was responsible for the figleaf. Will he assure the House that no contaminated apple juice has been sold in this country in the past few months, because he will recognise that his hon. Friends are far more interested in champagne than in a healthy drink so frequently consumed by my colleagues?

Mr. Soames: In that regard, the hon. Gentleman is an example to us all. I can give him the absolute assurance that he seeks. Since the report of the Committee on

Toxicity and the Food Advisory Committee, all batches of apple juice sold have been tested to the limits laid down. Naturally, any batches that exceed those limits are not put into circulation.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Until my hon. Friend spoke today I had no idea that the apple in the garden of Eden was a windfall. Will he confirm that to get anywhere near the dangerous level someone would have to drink 140 litres of apple juice a day? Will my hon. Friend do his best for the fruit processors in my constituency and recommend that people drink one litre a day, which would still leave them 139 litres a day away from any conceivable danger?

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend makes a good point in his own style. He would suffer an excess of more than patulin if he drank that amount of apple juice. Plainly, as in all such cases, the limits depend on very large doses being administered over a long period. That is why the steps that we took—the steps that we always take in connection with such food incidents—represent a reaction entirely in proportion to the risk, and are always in the interests of the consumer and of public health.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Minister not consider that we could have avoided much sensationalism if he had managed to lumber before us six months ago and tell us what was going on? Will he also consider the fact that in Scotland, as I know he is well aware, the Agriculture and Fisheries Department is not responsible for food safety? Does he not consider that, if the rest of the United Kingdom copied that example, it might help to reassure the public that the people responsible for food safety were not also responsible for promoting the interest of agriculture?

Mr. Soames: I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have a close and harmonious working relationship with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who is responsible for the food industry in Scotland. On all such matters we consult and operate in a manner which could be considered a model of co-operation across Whitehall.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does my hon. Friend accept that I drink apple juice every day of my life, and I do not consider myself toxic—although I may be quite dangerous at times? Is he aware that one of the people stirring up the controversy is a Dr. Tim Lang, the former director of the London Food Commission—a front organisation for the Labour party, funded by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) to the tune of £1 million—who has now resurfaced in an organization called Parents for Safe Food? And—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is abusing the time allowed—[Interruption.] Order. If the hon. Lady has a direct question, of course we must hear her. She has something quite valuable to say—most of the time.

Mrs. Gorman: Will my hon. Friend investigate my allegations?

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is not only a credit to the apple but an adornment to society. I am happy to assure her that we are mindful at all times of the need to balance the paramount requirement of public health and the


consumer interest—those are, of course, very important —with the need to have due regard to the manoeuvrings of those whose real interest is to rot the food industry.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As an hon. Member who has something valuable to say all the time, may I express a sense of puzzlement? Is not patulin a carcinogen? How comes it that the World Health Organisation, which consists of careful people and extremely cautious scientists, has said that the level of patulin is above the limit? If the Minister attacks my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), the same attack must be brought home to the WHO, must it not?

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the WHO has fixed an advised level of patulin at 50 parts per billion. It is also true that patulin, if taken in very great quantities, can be a carcinogen. The point is that the best advice from the best toxicological scientists in this country was that we should have acted exactly as we did—and we do not do anything unless the advice is both scientific and substantiated.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I congratulate my hon. Friend on listening to scientific advisers rather than the chattering classes on this matter. Is it not the case that a man even of the infinite capacity of my hon. Friend could not drink sufficient apple juice to do himself any damage? As long as the scaremongering—the political fun and games—goes on, the jobs of people in the apple industry who work in apple picking, in caring for the trees, in apple packing and in processing in constituencies such as mine in Kent will be at risk.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. It is true that a food scare can reduce confidence in a product and can, therefore, have an entirely unnecessary knock-on into the jobs of people who work in an excellent business. My hon. Friend is also right to say that the amount of apple juice that would have to be drunk for any harm to come to anyone is so huge that it is impossible to quantify. Nevertheless, we believe that the steps that we have taken are right and prudent, and that they will command the support of the consumer.

Ms. Glenda Jackson: Is the Minister aware that my constituents have not reacted to this morning's announcement with the mirth expressed by him and by his hon. Friends? In the main, the constituents

who have expressed their concern to me are mothers of small children. One such constituent is a woman who is pregnant. They are concerned about the amount that might be damaging, not to someone of the size and girth of the Minister, but to a small child. They are also concerned that they were not allowed to make the decision themselves, because the Government did not release the information, about whether they should or should not administer to their children what is, as the Minister said, a valuable source of vitamin C. The Minister denied them the right to make that decision themselves.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Lady is going a little over the top. There is no merriment among Conservative Members. We believe that this is a serious and important matter. The full weight of the Government's scientific advisers and toxicological advisers has been brought to bear on it. All the papers will be published and all the information will be made available. It is pointless to react in a way that is quite disproportionate to the risk. What matters is that people have, despite the best efforts of the hon. Lady and her amusing constituents, trust and belief in the integrity of the food chain in this country.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the Minister join me in condemning the Opposition out of hand for daring to frighten these poor women, who are now terrified and who say that they are afraid to give their children apple juice? Does he agree that it shows the depths to which the Opposition have sunk that they scare these poor women? Next time he is in my constituency —I hope that that will be soon—will he join me in drinking several pints of Inch's cider, which will give him a wonderful result?

Mr. Soames: I look forward to that day with great pleasure. I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that the scares put around by Labour Members are fatuous. The integrity of the food chain is a matter to which we attach the greatest importance. We shall allow nothing to happen which could upset that position.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We shall now move on. I have an announcement to make before we do so.
Hon. Members may have seen that there has been a little hold-up in the ballot for notices of motions. The ballot will therefore remain open until after the ten-minute rule Bill so that hon. Members are not inconvenienced, provided that the Chair is not inconvenienced by the rush of hon. Members around the Table.

Water Resources (Amendment)

Mr. Gareth Wardell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law applicable to pollution offences and anti-pollution works and operations under the Water Resources Act 1991 in so far as they relate to abandoned mines; and for connected purposes.
I seek leave to introduce the Bill at this time because it is highly relevant—[interruption]

Madam Speaker: Order. A number of rather loud conversations are going on. The hon. Gentleman is having some difficulty in making himself heard.

Mr. Wardell: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker.
I seek leave to introduce the Bill at this time because it is highly relevant to the plans for the coal industry. The discharge of waters from working mines into rivers is controlled through consents issued by the National Rivers Authority under section 89 of the Water Resources Act 1991. That section allows the NRA to protect rivers and streams from pollution by the imposition of conditions relating to the quality and quantity of the discharge and the proper monitoring of the water that is pumped out of the mine. Moreover, under section 161(1) of the Act, the NRA can carry out remedial or preventive works and reclaim the costs from the polluter.
When mining ends, however, there is a completely different picture. As the mine is abandoned, the pumps are stopped, and as the ground water seeks its pre-industrial revolution level, the tunnels and shafts fill with water. Whereas in a working mine any water is pumped out before prolonged contact with minerals or heavy metals, as the workings of abandoned mines fill, the water becomes contaminated by minerals. Where the contaminated water breaks through to the surface, it pollutes.
Usually, the pollution is highly visible because it is in the form of a red-stained sediment from dissolved iron salts. Such water is highly acidic. The sediment coats the bed of water courses and literally suffocates all life which might support fish. It ruins the spawning gravels for breeding fish and leaves only some species of algae to grow into thick blankets of unpleasant-looking cover. That affects the overall ecosystem of flora and fauna—in particular, bird species. Sometimes, the water is also contaminated by traces of cadmium, zinc and other heavy metals, and such invisible pollution has far more serious implications for the food chain.
Notwithstanding the position that I have described, as soon as a mine is abandoned and the pump switched off, pollution controls over discharges are removed. Under the Water Resources Act 1991, abandoned mines are specifically exempt from regulation. Under the Act, a mine operator such as British Coal may "permit" water to enter water courses by switching off the pumps, but it is deemed that British Coal does not "cause" the outflow. Presumably, mother nature is to blame. That means that, under the law as it stands at present, the operator of a coal mine or any other mine can walk away from his enterprise; there is nothing that anyone can do about it.
In January 1992, we saw the catastrophe that follows from the inadequacies of the present situation when the operators of the Wheal Jane tin mine in Cornwall went bankrupt. Few people will forget seeing on television the 10 million gallons of brick-red water that had surged into

the River Carnon, seeping downstream to foul the Restronguet creek, the Carrick roads and Falmouth bay and threatening the Helford estuary.
Subsequently, at Devoran bridge, cadmium levels were measured at 600 parts per billion, which should be set against the five parts per billion standard set in the dangerous substances directive. Similar results were obtained for other heavy metals. The NRA, the county and district councils and the Government have had to fund a massive clean-up programme which is still under way. There are 88 private mines operating in south Wales at present. There is a need to ensure that the environment is protected if and when those mines cease to operate. If the Government plan to sell off coal mines, it must be realised that, when a company decides that a privately owned mine has completed its profitable life, that company walks away from the mine with no further responsibility for what happens when it floods.
It is inconceivable that the Government should proceed with the sale of any mine without defining who is responsible for abandoned mine waters.
One solution would be for an agency, funded by a levy on extracted coal, to assume long-term responsibility for clearing pollution from abandoned mine waters. The Water Resources Act 1991 would be amended so that the agency would no longer be exempt from normal pollution controls. Section 161(4) of the Act would be amended so that, when the agency did not deal with the pollution to the satisfaction of the National Rivers Authority the authority would have the power to carry out the work and reclaim the costs from the agency. In that way, the NRA and the Government could meet the statutory duties imposed on them by the EC in relation to water quality standards. At present, that duty is not being met.
Of more immediate concern to local authorities, the NRA and conservationists is the result of the Government's decision to close 31 pits—or is it 20 or 10 pits? Who knows? It must be realised that, regardless of the number of pits which are closed, such closures will not mean simply that many more rivers will be polluted.
Many mines have not been totally abandoned when mining has stopped. Because of the safety requirements of nearby newer mines, pumping may have continued in old workings. Since the Oakdale colliery was abandoned in 1990, the River Sirhowy has been polluted by discharges for 1.5 km so far. When Oakdale closed, there was no longer any reason to continue pumping at Celynen north colliery, which closed on 31 March 1985. The subsequent break-out of water from that colliery has led to visual pollution of 2 km of the River Ebbw—threatening the environmental gains for a river which has been steadily improved at considerable cost since 1968.
British Coal has spent more than £1 million a year pumping disused pits in County Durham to protect the working coastal pits. If those pits close, the pollution potential will be enormous. Similarly, Derbyshire has many old mine workings which are pumped to protect newer pits, especially in the linked Nottinghamshire coalfield. Derbyshire county council is concerned about the pollution in its area that will result if the Nottinghamshire pits close.
Throughout the British coalfields, mining in the past was carried out with no appreciation of environmental consequences. We have been encumbered with depress-


ingly ugly spoil tips and derelict buildings. In Wales, so far we have at least 29,000 recorded abandoned shafts, drifts and adits.
In Yorkshire, discharges from abandoned mines are causing serious pollution to 40 km of river. In England, a total of about 250 km of rivers are affected by abandoned mine waters. That is likely considerably to underestimate the problem.
In south Wales, the Welsh Office is supporting research initiated by the Wales NRA to identify affected streams where pollution is unrecorded. But we know that more than 30 miles of streams and rivers, amounting to 4.5 per cent. of our classified rivers, are contaminated by waters from abandoned mines.
Members of the Welsh Select Committee visited sites early last year, including some in my constituency. They saw the effects of pollution on the river Cathan at Garnswllt, the 1 km of the River Morlais between the closed Brynlliw colliery and the river Clyne which is polluted for its entire length as it runs through the Clyne country park and down to the sea. The River Pelena, also in west Glamorgan, is known as the yellow river.
Those eyesores can be tackled only through Government funds for land reclamation schemes. I hope that before colliery closures or sell-outs take place, adequate effective legislation is established so that these problems are not added to.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gareth Wardell, Dr. Kim Howells, Mr. Ted Rowlands, Mr. Denzil Davies, Mr. David Hanson, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Ray Powell, Mr. Tom Clarke and Mr. Ken Eastham.

WATER RESOURCES (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Gareth Wardell accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law applicable to pollution offences and anti-pollution works and operations under the Water Resources Act 1991 in so far as they relate to abandoned mines; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 February, and to be printed. [Bill No. 131.]

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 26 FEBRUARY 1993

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Tom Cox
Mr. Harold Elletson
Mr. Bernard Jenkin

Orders of the Day — Housing and Urban Development Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

[DAME JANET FOOKES in the Chair.]

New clause 14

OBJECTS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE AGENCY

'1.—(1) The Agency established under section 139 below shall have the objects and functions specified in this section and in the rest of Part III.
(2) The main objects of the Agency shall be—

(a) to further the economic development of England or any part of England;
(b) to promote industrial efficiency and international competitiveness;
(c) to prepare, promote, assist and undertake measures for the economic and social development of England;
(d) to provide, maintain or safeguard employment in any part of England;
(e) to promote a special programme for the creation of employment opportunities in areas affected by the closure of collieries; and
(f) to further the improvement of the environment in England (having regard to existing amenity) and by, inter alia, securing the regeneration of land.

(3) With regard to the functions specified in (2), the objects of the Agency shall relate to the regeneration of land—

(a) which is land of one or more of the descriptions mentioned in subsection (4); and
(b) which the Agency (after consultation with local authorities and acting in accordance with directions, given by the Secretary of State under section 143) determines to be suitable for regeneration under this Part, after having undertaken an environmental assessment of the likely significant effects of the activities.

(4) The descriptions of land referred to in subsections 3(a) are—

(a) land which is vacant or unused;
(b) land which is situated in an urban area which is under-used or ineffectively used;
(c) land which is contaminated, derelict or unsightly; and
(d) land which is likely to become derelict or unsightly by reason of actual or apprehended collapse of the surface as the result of carrying out of relevant operations which have ceased to be carried out:

and in this subsection "relevant operations" has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Derelict Land Act 1982.
(5) The objects of the Agency are to be achieved in particular by the following means, namely—

(a) by developing or encouraging the development of new or existing industry and commerce;
(b) by providing or assisting in the provision of finance to persons carrying on or intending to carry on industrial or commercial undertakings;
(c) by assisting in the establishment or growth of community enterprises or co-operative enterprises;
(d) by promoting or assisting the establishment, growth, modernisation or development of industry or any undertaking in an industry;
(e) by providing or adapting sites or reconstructing premises for any industrial or commercial undertakings or assisting any other person to do any of these things and providing and assisting in the provision of related facilities;
(f) by managing or assisting in the management of sites and premises for industrial undertakings;


(g) by bringing derelict land into use or improving its appearance;
(h) by creating a safe and attractive environment; and
(i) by facilitating the provision of housing and social and recreational facilities.'.—[Mr. Henderson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Doug Henderson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I understand that it will he convenient to discuss at the same time the following amendments: No. 107, in clause 140, page 142, leave out from beginning of line 37 to end of line 29 on page 143.
No. 130, in page 142, line 44 at end insert—
'; and

(c) with due regard to the environment in which the land is situated; and
(d) principally for the benefit of the people resident in the local authority area in which the land is situated.'.

Mr. Henderson: New clause 14 is about how best the problem of urban dereliction can be tackled in our country. The Government would say that a property-led urban regeneration agency was the most appropriate way of tackling the problem of urban dereliction. The Opposition would argue that such an agency would be inadequate and that the weight of evidence for the weakness of similar past attempts such as the urban development corporations is available for all to see. We would also argue that a full development agency along the lines of the Welsh Development Agency and Scottish Enterprise is necessary if a real attempt is to be made to tackle the problem of urban dereliction in Britain.
I am pleased to say that there was agreement in Committee that there was a problem of urban dereliction which could lead to under-utilisation of potential economic resources, both human and physical, with the inevitable result that unemployment is created. It is a problem which places physical and aesthetic blight on many urban areas. It is a problem which throws up huge social problems such as bad housing, family stress, poor health, poor educational achievement, teenage violence and a drug culture. It is a problem which in many communities in Britain creates a sense of hopelessness. Generations of unemployed people and whole communities feel alienated from the rest of society. It is a problem not only of people but of people and their communities.
There was also agreement in Committee that the problem of urban dereliction would not go away of its own accord and that the state must intervene if a real attempt is to be made to tackle the problems. There was a recognition that market forces would not deal with the problem of urban dereliction and would inevitably tend to create development in prosperous areas. It was recognised that the cost of urban renewal was too expensive to attract a market solution. There are extra costs, such as the cost of clearing sites and providing infrastructure such as roads, railways and new factories. There may be a lack of trained staff to work in a new employment area.
Indeed, there may be difficulty in attracting trained staff into areas afflicted by urban dereliction. A culture of community needs to be established so that staff who come to work in an area which needs to be developed have the

facilities which they would expect in other communities such as shopping and recreational facilities. Market forces will not create such facilities. Also, developers will always be attracted to the easy short-term option—the pull of an attractive location which will give them a quick return. State intervention is necessary if developers are to be attracted into areas of severe urban dereliction. That is as far as agreement went when the subject was discussed in Committee and there was no agreement on how the problems could best be tackled.
The Minister said in Committee that a multi-agency approach was necessary, and I do not disagree. He must, however, think of the nature of that approach because there are plenty of examples of multi-agency approaches in the recent past. Urban development councils, task forces, derelict land grant, urban aid, city challenge, training and enterprise councils and a host of other initiatives have been taken. As he visits different parts of the country, the Minister's own eyes must tell him that the problem has not been resolved. He is welcome to come to Tyneside to find out what is happening there. The multi-agency approach has not made any real dent on urban dereliction.
Is not the Government's failure one of economic analysis? One of the Government's advisers, professor Robson of Manchester university, recently spoke about urban problems to the Institute of British Geographers' conference, saying:
It is not enough to rely on benefits trickling down from large developments—such as London Docklands. When too many inhabitants of a city are without money, work, homes, and worst of all without hope, cities as entities must inevitably flounder.
Before he sat on the Front Bench the Minister was known to be keen to put his thoughts down in writing from time to time. He prepared a book called, "Popular Capitalism", which obviously endeared him to his master —or rather mistress—of the time, as he was quickly promoted to the Front Bench after its publication. In the book he said:
Far from being divisive or doing people down, popular capitalism has got something to offer all of the people. Many pilgrims are now wending their way to Docklands and are mastering the street names of the new city. Perhaps one day Heron Quay, Mudchute, Canary Wharf will be names as well known worldwide as Trafalgar Square, Marble Arch and Charing Cross.
So, who are the pilgrims? Credit Suisse, Ogilvy and Mather—an advertising company—the Daily Telegraph, and the remains of the developers Olympia and York. That constitutes only 15 per cent. of Canary Wharf, however, because the rest of it is lying empty—so they are lonely pilgrims.
The Minister's officials were not prepared to be pilgrims. They were offered the chance to jump on Howard's Mayflower at Westminster and troop down the Thames to the Isle of Dogs, but as soon as the opportunity was made available it became known as the great mutiny on the Thames because his employees were not prepared to go. Instead of being known as Heron Quay or Canary Wharf, it will be known as the lost city of Wapping, and in many senses it deserves to be, because the project was ill conceived.
Why will the Government not listen to the evidence that a development-type agency is necessary? That view has been expressed to the Government by a wide range of sources. The agency should co-ordinate infrastructure development, the activities of the important Departments of Transport, Environment, and Trade and Industry. It


should link up any training schemes that might be made available and act to encourage inward investment. It should co-ordinate grants and aid and, importantly, promote the area.
4.15 pm
Not only the Labour party is saying that, but the Government's own consultants. I have a document which has already been presented to the Minister by Linklaters and Paines. It argues forcibly that a property-based agency on its own will be completely inadequate. It strongly argues for a development agency to co-ordinate the various factors that I mentioned.
The builders involved in many of the development schemes have also used the same argument. I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the House by reeling off endless quotes, but it is useful to quote Costain, which states:
The Consultation Paper
on which the Bill is based
gives no indication of how the primary aim of the Agency, 'to enable vacant and derelict land in urban areas to be brought into use', will be integrated with the people related activities which are so necessary. Scotland, with its network of Enterprise Companies, and Wales, with its Development Agency, have a more holistic answer to the challenge and we recommend that this opportunity be used to provide a similar response to England's regeneration needs.
Nigel Smith, another of the Government's advisers, wrote in a recent article in the Local Government Chronicle:
The WDA has been able to exploit the synergy between its property and inward investment functions—offering a one stop shop—to great effect. Regionally based outfits in England cannot hold a candle to the Welsh.
If the Minister is not convinced by the evidence of the consultants and the developers, perhaps he will listen to the views of Lord Walker, who will be appointed chairman of the agency should Parliament approve it.
Autobiographies have become fashionable for ex-Ministers and Lord Walker in his argues:
We calculated that by creating new businesses, helping existing companies grow and attracting inward investment from Britain and overseas, we could bring down unemployment to the lowest figure in England"—
in relation to Wales.
I quickly realised that my best instrument for achieving all this was the Welsh Development Agency. It was flexible, could help with the property side, offer grants in line with the EEC rules. I gave it more money to expand the job.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. John Redwood): How is it that the hon. Gentleman argues for wider powers, opportunities and responsibilities for an unelected organisation—the URA—while the leader of the Labour party said that much more must be done by elected politicians in government and local authorities? There seems to be an inconsistency between his amendment and what the leader of his party was saying a few days ago.

Mr. Henderson: There is absolutely no distinction between what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the leader of the Labour party, was saying and what I have said. My right hon. and learned Friend the leader of the Labour party would support me in saying that the agency charged with regenerating urban Britain must be given the proper powers to do the job. My right hon. and learned Friend

made the point, as I would, that the agency should be democratically accountable to Parliament, certainly on an annual basis when setting out budgets and reports.
The agency should also be accountable to the regions of the country where it operates. The democratic structure on which the agency could be regionally based should be examined. There should be local monitoring committees so that where the agency is working in local streets or communities, the residents can have a direct say in what it is doing. There is absolutely no distinction between the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East and myself or my other hon. Friends.
Even were the property-led agency to have some impact upon our cities, does the Minister believe that it could have any impact on rebuilding communities in our coalfields? There is clearly a need not only to rebuild the whole economies of those areas but to bring in the infrastructure, to develop the training and to do all the other things which are necessary to give a community hope for jobs, vitality and a chance of being successful. I hope the Minister is not suggesting that there should be a Grimethorpe wharf. I cannot imagine that that would do much to help rebuild that community.
In relation to the regeneration of land, is it not also essential to do that in partnership with local authorities? The Government have not given sufficient emphasis to that. Partnership is necessary so that planning is co-ordinated and things like housing need are taken into account. Where there is a chance of revitalising many inner-city areas, much of the investment should be in housing. If inner city areas are to have vitality and hope for the future, people must live there. If there are no houses which people can afford, they will not be able to live in the inner cities.
The third argument in favour of a partnership with local authorities is that expenditure programmes must be closely co-ordinated; otherwise, any good work undertaken by any agency could be undermined because of the authority's lack of resources.
If I had had more time, I would have liked to give more evidence to the House of other authorities who have argued the same case. It is important that the House understands that the argument about building a partnership with local authorities is not party political. It is put forward by practitioners who have experience of development schemes. Organisations like the Building Employers Confederation have argued the case firmly. The royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which is far from being Labour-controlled, has also put in a submission to the Minister about the need for development schemes to involve local authorities.
If the Minister cares to read the press releases of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), he will see in the press release of 16 November 1992 that
Mr. Howard stressed in his keynote speech that there were no quick fixes and that the success of urban regeneration required partnership, the key to his major capital partnership initiative. He said: 'There is no doubt in my mind there are opportunities in the inner cities. Local authorities have a key role to ensure that these opportunities are seized.'
I hope that the Government are prepared to learn from the lesson that they must have witnessed with their own eyes, namely, the disasters in areas like docklands; they should also learn from the experience of the 1980s when there were too many confusing schemes and too many unco-ordinated and disjointed schemes, and when all the


schemes had too few resources, with the result that none of the schemes made any great impact on regenerating urban areas.
The Minister should learn from the experience of his colleagues in Scotland and Wales who are sitting not far from him. Development agencies in Scotland and Wales, working closely and in partnership with local authorities, have achieved more than the panoply of schemes which have been available intermittently in parts of England. The Minister should listen to the experience Of consultants, planners, architects, surveyors, builders and developers.
They are all saying the same thing: that a properly-led agency will not work and that an agency with much firmer powers must be able to take on the real task of regenerating not only the economy but the social fabric of many of the inner cities. That rebuilding has to be done in partnership with local authorities. That is also the experience of local authorities and of the local people who have been involved.
New clause 14 gives the House a new opportunity for urban regeneration. It provides an opportunity to create legislation which can have a real impact on a terrible problem which afflicts many parts of the country. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment as proposed in new clause 14.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I strongly support the new clause. If we want to promote economic development through the 1990s and into the 21st century, we need to take a long-term view and to ensure that it is carefully co-ordinated and planned. We need a well-developed strategic approach. Most importantly, we must consider the human resources in a particular area. The vast majority of the 306 responses to the Government's consultative exercise on the proposed urban regeneration agency raised the points to which I have just referred. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said, those responses were not party-based; they came from across the whole spectrum of political parties.
The Minister made it clear in Committee that he envisaged the urban regeneration agency as having a narrow brief—a step towards
bringing derelict land back into use.
He then said:
the task of encouraging wholesale regeneration…is very large. That is why we need a series of other policies in other Departments, other bodies, and local authorities."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12 January 1993; c. 806.]
The special measures expenditure, the urban block element of DOE expenditure, is small—a ratio of 1:12. It is a small carrot intended to encourage a donkey along the road of increased economic activity. Our point is that, if the donkey is walking down the wrong road—if unemployment and poverty are increasing, benefits are being cut and housing is becoming more and more derelict —that small carrot will not he sufficient to encourage the donkey down the right road of economic development in any of our cities. I hope that the Minister will make representations to his Cabinet colleagues to change the direction of wholesale economic policy to make economic development in inner-city areas effective. If he does not do that, the policy will not be effective.
The second point of concern about special measures —the £200 million carrot—is that there is every likelihood that the money will not go where it is most needed. A parliamentary answer to me on 27 January referring to the

distribution of urban block expenditure this year clearly showed that £318 million of the £1 billion block had gone to London and the south-east. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North commented on docklands.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) produced figures only two days ago showing that, overall, there has been a dramatic shift in public resources to east Anglia, London and the south-east. At the same time as the Government are talking about the problems of reclaiming derelict land and property in those areas which have suffered industrial decline, in the northern region there has been a 4 per cent. cut in public resources.
Through new clauses 14 and 108, we are attempting to ensure that expenditure is effective, but it will not be effective unless there is a well-developed, democratically controlled regional structure to define the strategic approach and to attract funds. As I said both on Second Reading and in Committee—on neither occasion did the Government satisfactorily pick up the points—there is nothing in the Bill relating to the increasingly important role of the European Community in special measures funds for economic development. Research over the past five years has shown that the European countries and regions which were most effective in their use of European economic development and social fund moneys were those with a strong regional democratic structure. That important element is totally missing from the Bill.
4.30 pm
This distribution of funds is also important. It is not possible for a regeneration agency which is blinded by land and property and politics alone, and which does not identify the plight of the people living there, to create a distribution system based on need. My hon. Friend mentioned what happened in the docklands in the 1980s. The special inner-city measures introduced by a Conservative Government during the mid-1980s were a sick joke. They were spoken of as relating to poverty and to inner cities, but there followed the most lucrative profits for property developers as property prices sharply increased. The Government have learnt nothing and they are making the same mistake again. They are offering a new initiative based simply on land and property, which will have no effect on the reality of life for people living in the cities.
Simultaneous with the launching of the agency is the rundown and destruction of the urban programme, which has clear criteria for meeting training demands and the needs of black communities. We have seen the rundown also of the safer cities initiative, which was crucial in upgrading inner-city policing and reducing crime, and of Home Office-funded schemes which made a major impact on training and education among black and other ethnic minority communities. All that is happening at a time when official statistics released yesterday show that unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds is 18 per cent. while among black and other ethnic minority communities it is as high as 38 per cent. Yet still the Government are shifting from a people-based approach to one narrowly based on land and property. That missed opportunity is unforgivable.
The agency's style and constitution lacks everything that we want. It is yet another example of government by quango. The board's membership will be tightly drawn


and nominated by the Minister—its chairman has already been nominated. It will follow the pattern set by many other quangos with memberships nominated by Ministers —training and enterprise councils, development corporations, health trusts, and so on. I recommend Keith Shaw's study of the north-eastern area, "Regional studies No. 2 —1990: In search of the non-elected state". A serious democratic deficit is now involved in the control of the major elements of public funding in a variety of areas. Accountability is lacking, because power and money have been shifted away from locally accountable authorities. I find that extremely worrying.
We discussed the regeneration agency's corporate plan in Committee. We also had an interesting discussion this morning in the Select Committee on the Environment about the merits of publishing the draft corporate plan for the Housing Corporation, for which the National Federation of Housing Associations has pressed very strongly. We want the plan to be open to public scrutiny, consultation and discussion. The Minister said a good deal in Committee about the need for consultation on the agency's plans and proposals, but nothing in the Bill even suggests that the agency has a duty to prepare and present a corporate plan; such a plan is not even mentioned.
The Minister said in one of his replies that the agency would
be required to produce for the Secretary of State a corporate plan and detailed budget management documents, which he will study and approve".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 14 January 1993; c. 843.]
That, however, is no answer to the question of open government. There is no point in simply publishing an annual report which is retrospective and then saying, "You can have all the consultation you want," because the consultation would be about something that had already happened. I ask the Minister to agree—in the spirit of open government—to require the agency to publish its draft corporate plan, so that discussion and consultation can take place before the Minister makes his funding decisions.
I hope that I shall catch the eye of whoever is in the Chair later today so that I can refer to the important question of the removal of planning control from local authorities in designated areas. That is relevant to new clause 21.
With the right economic policy, the agency has the potential to take on board economic development under democratic control, along the lines suggested in new clause 14. It could encompass all aspects of economic development, concentrate its drive and motivation on the human resources which exist in our cities and urban areas and help to promote the economy of those areas.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the new clause, but I wish to concentrate on amendment No. 130, which is tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones).
I must declare an obvious interest: I represent a development corporation constituency, and have done throughout my time in the House. As a result, I have some experience of what it is like to represent, and to live and work in, an area whose regeneration authority is appointed by Ministers. I have had the opportunity to reflect on the nature of an authority whose members have come and gone while elected members have remained—and, above all, whose specific objectives have never been defined.
Section 136 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 defines the object of an urban development corporation as
to secure the regeneration of its area.
It does not say how, when or, more important, for whom. It does not say in whose interests an area is to be regenerated. It is regeneration for regeneration's sake. Often the attitude of those who live and work, and those who have lived and worked, in the Surrey docks area along the south side of the Thames, in Bermondsey and Rotherhithe, and by London bridge—and, equally, those in the Isle of Dogs, Wapping, Tower Hamlets and Newham—has been, "Yes, there is regeneration, but it is not regeneration for us."
In many cases, indeed, it has appeared to be regeneration against "us". Schemes were announced, put to the planning committee of the development corporation —a body not elected by anyone—and approved. Some of these schemes then took effect, even though they were contrary to the views expressed by local communities, their representatives and often the local councils.
Like the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), I make the point that we should not be under the illusion that any type of appointed agency is a substitute for a democratically accountable body. This is no replacement for democratic regional government in England, no replacement for fairly elected local authorities making decisions for their areas, and no replacement for a tier of local government in London, as in the rest of England, at parish or community level, which could look at very small development and planning matters. I know that the Minister is aware of and at least partially sympathetic to the last of these points. I hope that, when he has completed the work that he is doing, he will agree that we in London, like people in the rest of the country, are entitled to parish or community councils.
We shall certainly not secure democratic accountability through the proposed agency. That being so, I make a plea for some things which, even if we do not like the structure and the format, can at least determine the nature of the agency. First, we need a partnership between the agency and its works, on the one hand, and those who are democratically elected and their plans, on the other. That point has been made already, so I shall not elaborate on it. Secondly, we need proper consultation—a point made well by the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, North and for Sheffield, Hillsborough, who said that it was not good enough to have a few quango employees producing a glossy brochure and saying, "This is the corporate plan —take it," but no consultation with people on the ground, who might just have some good ideas.
One of the frustrations of Members for Docklands constituencies—this has been put to the Minister's predecessors—is that they have often heard of plans and initiatives only after the press has been told about them. That is no way to proceed. This is not self-interest and arrogance; it is simply that, in a democracy, elected representatives, whether at local government level or at parliamentary level, are entitled to timely information about what is going on.
Within the confines of the structure that the Government want the agency to have, its membership should take some account of the interests and concerns of those who are democratically elected. Indeed, it would be no bad thing if the majority of the agency's membership


could be arrived at after consultation with representatives of the local authorities—in particular, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and, potentially, the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils, the Association of London Authorities, and the London boroughs. It would certainly be a good idea if those who do this job were to reflect democratic trends, as well as bringing skills and expertise to it.

Mr. Redwood: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are 34 local authority members on the boards in urban development corporations around the country? There are many good examples of how people work in partnership. I welcome the fact that, in several towns, cities and other areas, there is now excellent collaboration. Indeed. in the case of Hartland and Plymouth, the local authorities want urban development corporations; they have been pressing us to set them up and get on with the job.

Mr. Hughes: To be completely honest, I have to say that I did not know that the number was 34. I accept that development co-operatives have some local authority members. Indeed, such members have always been sought. In the case of the Docklands corporation, a local authority member has been sought from each of the three borough councils. The problem is, they never constitute a majority on the development corporation: democratic accountability is fine, but the inability ever to be a majority gives rise to the danger of tokenism.
Some local authorities see the benefit of an agency and of money coming in. The Minister must understand the point that I am making, as in the not too distant past he worked in and sought to represent urban areas, although the electors of Peckham were not terribly supportive of that proposition when he presented himself to them. At any rate, he will remember how important it is to secure partnership and agreement wherever possible.
Secondly, much regeneration has yet to take place. Last year a friend of mine—a Zimbabwean nun who works for Oxfam—visited Britain. Having been to many parts of urban England, she commented on the extent to which land is under-used. She regarded that as a scandal. In Zimbabwe, good land is such a valuable commodity—yet here she saw much good land in this country which was not being used. My friend made the point very tellingly. It can be beneficial to be made aware of the perspective of someone from outside our own culture.
I do not dissent from the proposition that there has been some very laggardly development, but there is no point in development if we get it wrong and if it does not meet people's needs. In this regard, I hope that the Minister is sympathetic to our amendment and that, if he is unable to accept it, he will undertake to consider it with a view to negotiating something which could be the subject of an amendment in another place.
I wish to make a serious point in relation to the two halves of a very simple amendment: first, any development should take place with due regard to the environment; secondly, it should be principally for the benefit of residents of the area. Like my constituents and many others in urban Britain, I am aware that some of the benefits of urban life have corresponding disbenefits. One thinks for example, of noise, pollution, high crime rates and a generally lower quality of life. In urban Britain, the chances of having one's vehicle or house broken into are

considerably higher, and people have to tolerate traffic noise through the night as well as through the day. It is therefore very important that the environment in which regeneration takes place should leave people with a better quality of life.
I will give two examples relating to the experience of those of us from south London. We believe that we are about to have something which, in the short term, will be much more useful than a regeneration agency. This is a matter about which the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) shares my concern. I refer to the announcement about the Jubilee line extension, which has been mentioned so often in the House that someone from another planet might think that we were struck in a timewarp—or the groove of a record. We have been promised that development, and we are waiting for it to come out of the tunnel—but we have been waiting so long that we have almost forgotten which way to look.
The extension will do much good for docklands south and north of the river, but we must have regeneration which takes account of the best means of removing the spoil of four years' work from where people live. There is no point in suffering four years of hell if it can be avoided. That is not a matter with which I want the Minister to deal specifically, but I mention it as an example. Regeneration must take account of the already noisy, cramped and difficult urban environment, and therefore must be planned so as to minimise disturbance and maximise benefit. For example, spoil should be transported by river rather than by road, and lorry journeys should be made as short as possible. Such practical measures can be taken to deal with problems which affect people immensely.
The second example is topical. It directly affects riverside Members in central London, and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) and I are equally concerned about it. We have just learnt that some promoters wish to introduce a floating helipad which would move among 22 sites between Chelsea bridge and the pool of London. In the past 10 years, there have been six battles—all of them successful—to stop helicopters from landing and taking off from riverside sites at Blackfriars, Cannon Street, Bermondsey and Rotherhithe. On Monday, there was a trial flight from one roof of Sea Containers house by Blackfriars bridge before an inquiry in April.
Regeneration cannot be environmentally sound if its consequence is to permit helicopter flights, which people regard as a blessed nuisance, without their being subject to any planning authority. The Minister appears almost amazed that that is not subject to the planning requirements. We want not loopholes but proper processes of consultation and decision.

Ms. Kate Hoey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—he is my hon. Friend on this issue—for giving way. This proposal will circumvent every planning law. It seems nonsense that we are discussing a Bill on housing and urban development while at the same time this proposal is being allowed to proceed. I am sorry that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has not been selected, because we must find a means of subjecting the proposal to the normal planning procedures so that people who live and work along the river are consulted before their lives are runied.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady makes a good point. There is a convergence of views in the community. People who live in inner cities, regardless of their political views, often have the same views. We are saying that we do not want short cuts which circumvent the proper procedures. The majority view is not held uniquely by people living in council tower blocks; it is also shared by people who have bought expensive riverside flats on a long lease. Whatever our reservations and qualifications about the agency, our plea is that short cuts which have an environmental disbenefit must not be allowed.
My next point relates to paragraph (d) of amendment No. 130, which uses the words
principally for the benefit of
local residents. I do not mean that development must be only for the benefit of people who live in the area, but if a person's home is chosen for regeneration by an agency which nobody has elected, it is reasonable to expect the agency to act first in the interests of the people trapped by the decision and most affected by it.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North argued that one of the agency's purposes must be to maximise employment, and that point is made in one of the objects of the agency. My constituency has one of the 10 highest unemployment rates in Britain, so one of my key tasks is to maximise work opportunities for people who do not have work but who want to use their skills. Objectives must be specific and of benefit to residents.
Suitable housing must be developed. It is no good building luxury riverside flats which are out of the range of 95 per cent. of the population when there is not enough accommodation to house people such as the three who came to my door this morning before I left home saying that they wanted housing. Enough schools must be built to cater for the extra people who move into an area when it is regenerated. Such co-ordinated arrangements are necessary for the community.
The transport system must be able to meet the needs of a regenerated area. It is no good the M25 and the docklands light railway being found to be inadequate because they were planned wrongly. I am not saying that we should widen the M25-I believe that goods should be transported by other means—but a railway should be able to cater for the number of people who use it. Let us have some sympathy and priority for people who live in areas which are chosen for regeneration. Such areas are not just lines on the map; they contain real people whose families have often lived there for generations, and they have a right to have their interests put first.
I agree also that one of the prime functions of the agency should be to help in the coalfield communities of Britain. As the docks of south London have shown, when an industry is removed it removes a substantial employer and generator of primary or secondary work. Whatever the outcome of the review, and however many pits are saved, we have a duty to ensure that the coalfield communities are supported and encouraged and that those areas become as prosperous to live in as anywhere else.
I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the new clause and to my amendment.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: The proposed urban development agency must be judged against a number of things, especially rising unemployment. Unemployment in Coventry is about 11.5 per cent.,

and a fair proportion of those unemployed are young people. They obviously take much interest in anything that the Government suggest to tackle the problem.
My problem with the Bill is that, on the one hand, the Government set up an urban development agency but on the other the Government go into the abstract and become a little vague about what I call the subsidiary resources and the agencies that should go with it. As some of my hon. Friends said earlier, urban aid projects such as the safer cities programme, section 11 and education projects are under threat from the Government. People in urban areas, especially black people, rely on those agencies for training, advice and business experience to enable them to set up businesses. The Government say that their objective is to tackle regeneration and create jobs, yet they are removing that objective in the way that I outlined.
The other yardstick is whether the agency will help to revive Britain's manufacturing base. People in great manufacturing cities such as Coventry, Birmingham and Wolverhampton will take an interest in seeing whether these agencies can re-establish our industrial base. For far too long, Britain's industrial base has been eroded, especially during the 1980s, or the boom years as we now like to call them, when the service industries flourished and everyone thought that we were on the road to utopia, only to discover six or seven years later that we were not.
We must remember that many urban development agencies could be successful, providing they have the co-operation of local authorities and local industrialists. There have been several debates about Europe recently. Europe has forms of—dare I say it—regional government. Agencies can work hand in hand with regional government to allow for what I would call strategic planning on a major scale in any given region. In that respect, there is a vacuum in this country, and that is where the problems will lie in trying to ensure that the regeneration agency is successful.
5 pm
We should remember that we do not have a structure in this country to meet the European criteria in terms of attracting grants to some of our more depressed areas. Ministers often go to Europe to haggle with and to persuade our partners to provide money for our deprived regions. That problem must be dealt with if urban development agencies are to have a measure of success. The Minister might find that he will have to establish more locally based agencies because there must be a mechanism or vehicle to make people in localities within regions feel that they are part of the decision-making process of that region.
There must certainly be something more locally based in cities such as Birmingham and Coventry. If not, the agencies will not necessarily receive the co-operation of local residents who might experience difficulties with, for example, planning permissions, an issue that we shall discuss later.
The Minister said that there had been a great deal of co-operation with local authorities. I have no reason to doubt that, but based on my experience in the west midlands, stronger representation will be needed on any boards. Without that, the boards will become quangos which could ride roughshod over people, local authorities, industry and industrialists. The result might be that the


objectives of land regeneration and job creation are not achieved. In any event, the Minister must take on board those issues.
One of the big problems is that any regeneration must take place against the Chancellor's autumn statement and the Chief Secretary's statement yesterday. Many aspects of spending are to be reviewed, which will cause considerable problems because the agency will be trying to fulfil its function with diminishing resources, and that is what it is all about. The Government are trying to operate a policy which has no more than a 50:50 chance of success.
All in all, there seems to be little hope for inner-city areas, especially in terms of urban aid, safer cities and financial help. We have already told the Minister that there are serious disturbances in those areas. People have tried to analyse them, and I have no more answers than anyone else, but they know that many young people, of black and European origin, have no hope because they do not have a job. Many have never had jobs but will be looking to the Government to provide jobs and training. Some people in the major cities will be considering the proposals in that light.
We hoped, and we still hope, that the Minister will have second thoughts about urban aid and section 11 areas for which he has responsibility. We hope that he will talk to his colleagues about safer cities projects because if they are not maintained alongside urban development projects, I and a number of colleagues will be apprehensive about what is likely to happen this summer. I say that not as a threat but out of extreme concern. I have spoken to people in the inner cities who have experienced burglaries and violence.
We hope that the Minister will consider the new clause and, where possible, give a little. I repeat that Coventry has a number of sites and projects that we would like him to consider if and when the legislation is approved.

Ms. Ann Coffey: I support new clause 14. Like many of my hon. Friends, I am worried about the narrowness of the Bill in attempting to achieve urban regeneration. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham), I am specially concerned about urban aid funding being run down in the next few years. We need to consider a number of strategies to achieve urban regeneration: industrial investment, improvement of houses, access to employment, and social and recreational facilities.
Those strategies are necessary to the regeneration of communities. We often talk about urban regeneration but we mean the regeneration of communities. "Community" is a very over-used word. I sometimes think that people believe that communities are suddenly born. They are not; people have to work to create a community and to continue to work to hold it together. Urban aid funding has been very important, especially in many inner cities, in enabling that to happen and in allowing communities to work together in the face of obstacles.
Urban aid funding has been used in a variety of ways. It has mostly been used in areas of rising unemployment, poor social housing and rising crime. It has been used for the benefit of the community. A number of projects are currently being funded by urban aid. I could give an enormous list, but I shall mention just a few. The list includes play schemes for the under-fives for whom nursery education is not available; support and advice to carers, people living at home looking after relatives;

community action schemes which help communities to feel that they are achieving something and help to get rid of the feeling of powerlessness, and youth centres and centres for the elderly. Such projects have often given back to communities that feel decimated and demoralised the hope and possibility of achieving something.
That feeling should not be under-estimated, because the most serious problem is the demoralisation of inner-city communities. That demoralisation leads to a fragmentation and the result is, unfortunately, ever-rising crime.
The Minister is making a fundamental mistake in using urban aid money to finance the urban regeneration agency. The urban aid money is for a different purpose.
I do not know whether the Minister expects local authorities to be able to pick up the tab, which is what happened in the past when urban aid money ran out. But in the past they could raise the finance, and now they cannot. Throughout the country, especially in the inner cities, local authorities face the capping of their budgets. The name of the game these days is cutting services. The only choice that local authorities have is which services to cut—and they have to make such choices in the face of an enormous amount of legislation based on the assumption that the community is there to care and to provide the network. Both the Children Act 1989 and the National Health and Community Care Act 1990, especially the latter, make assumptions about the caring community networks being there to look after the elderly.
As the Minister knows, raising finance has been made even more difficult for local authorities in the aftermath of the poll tax disaster. I estimate that in Stockport, my local authority area, £10 million which could have been spent on services has been lost through debt charges on borrowing, uncollected poll tax, administration and all the associated costs. The problem continues, because the deficit is still there. Local authorities will not be able to pick up the tab. They will not be able to provide statutory services to fill the gap. Inevitably, the projects will disappear, and that will be a further blow to the communities. I urge the Minister to think again.
Most such projects are funded through the voluntary sector, on which the community, the statutory sector and, indeed, the Government are relying more and more heavily to provide services such as sitting schemes, transport, luncheon clubs, respite care for handicapped children, and so on. However, "voluntary" does not mean free and for nothing. Voluntary agencies need support for administrative costs and for training workers. The voluntary sector will be especially hard hit by the withdrawal of urban aid funding.
In Committee the Minister answered our questions about the narrowness of the Bill by saying that housing problems and the problems involved in generating social networks would be dealt with elsewhere, through other policies. However, since the mandatory grants scheme was introduced in Stockport in 1990, fewer houses have been improved with grants and through envelope schemes. To rely on the grants system to deal with problems such as improving housing as part of urban regeneration involves a gross assumption. That simply is not happening.
How can one talk about urban regeneration without considering employment, especially among young people? Unemployment increases poverty in the community, and the cycle of economic decline continues. As more people become unemployed, there is less buying power and less


demand, so industries go out of business as a result. We need to attract industry, and to do so we must have a skilled work force.
5.15 pm
The training and enterprise councils have the major responsibility for skilling the community, especially young people, but I am worried about whether that is happening to a high enough level. We still seem to be thinking in terms of quantity rather than quality. I was most concerned that, in the High Peak TEC area, fewer young people were given engineering placements this year than last year. That seems to be a sign that the attempt to give young people badly needed manufacturing and engineering skills is gradually being given up. I do not know how we can attract new industrial investment if we have no skilled labour force.
All those matters must be tackled—employment, industrial strategy, and improving the social network and the housing infrastructure. If that does not happen there will be no genuine urban regeneration. It cannot be done simply by local authorities. The Minister is right to say that more strategic planning is needed. The pity of it is that the north-west, especially Greater Manchester, already had a strategic planning level—the Greater Manchester council, which the Government abolished. I am glad that they have gradually come round to the idea that a strategic planning level is needed to make things happen.
Of course, planning on that scale has to go beyond local authorities, but I still argue that it can be achieved through the democratic system. At present, through the planning laws, the Secretary of State has the last word. Any developer refused permission by the local council can appeal to the Secretary of State, and the council's decision can be overturned. That opportunity is open to the developer, but not to the objector. The objector cannot go to the Secretary of State. The planning laws have been considerably centralised since 1987, which has limited local authorities' ability to make planning decisions. There is a great deal of central control over planning issues.
There are several reasons why the system should be democratic. It is worrying that the Government are exerting tighter and tigher control over the allocation of resources, yet are handing over the responsibility for spending and managing those resources to unelected representatives appointed by a system which is by no means clear to everybody. What does the term "community representative" mean? Who is to judge who is a community representative?
The only way to judge who represents the community is through an electoral system, whereby one can see by the votes cast who is a community representative and who is not. The system of government by unelected representatives is pervading our whole society, which is a matter for enormous concern. When things go wrong, to whom do people complain? How do they know how decisions are taken, and how do they influence them and change things? Without a system of elected representation, none of that is possible.
Instead of the idea of elected representatives we now seem to have the notion of consultation. Over the past few days I have heard the phrase "right to consultation" again and again. What does it mean? Consultation means nothing unless the person being consulted is really able to

influence what happens. Unless elected representatives have the power to influence, and to make things happen, consultation and the phrase "right to consultation", mean nothing.
When the Minister sums up I hope that he will consider carefully the narrowness of the Bill and how, given that narrowness, it can achieve urban regeneration. Secondly, I hope that he will deal with the issue of democratic representation, and all the agencies that will spend money and make decisions which have enormous consequences for neighbourhoods.

Mr. George Mudie: I was in two minds whether to speak because of the timetable, but my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) has told me that he has already written five minutes of praise about my speech, so I had better make it.
I am also a bit embarrassed. As the Minister knows, I was not a great admirer of the Bill on Second Reading or in Committee. However, I rise under instruction—[Interruption.] It is not what hon. Members think. I am under instruction from my colleagues and friends in the fine city of Leeds. One of the first things I found out during my first week here, which I have not been able to practise, is that if one does not ask, one does not get owt. I am under instructions that before this terrible measure has completed its passage through the House, I must launch the interest of the city of Leeds in housing Lord Walker and his many staff. That plea is an additional reason why I support the fine new clause. Lord Walker will need more staff if the new clause is included in the Bill, so more office space will be needed.

Mr. Redwood: It would help the case of Leeds no end if the hon. Gentleman said that he did not support the new clause. I cannot guarantee that I could deliver the Leeds office in that case, but it might sway Lord Walker.

Mr. Mudie: As Oscar Wilde said, the only way to rid oneself of temptation is to give in to it. However, I shall not. Sorry, Leeds, I shall not be bribed—at least not in front of the cameras.
It will be sufficient for me to explain what a fine city Leeds is. The civil servants will not have to fear wending their way tubeless to docklands or even to Marsham street. Like their 2,000 colleagues in the Department of Social Security, they would be in the centre of Leeds. There is still space on the same site and within 10 minutes, they would be in open countryside.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: It is called Sheffield.

Mr. Mudie: I was about to deal with that city south of the great city of Leeds. If the civil servants had the time, they could always nip down to peer at the quaint city of Sheffield. I hope that the Minister will give my suggestion due consideration.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: I cannot let pass the implication that people will travel down the motorway to Sheffield just to have a look at the shopping facilities, especially as they might end up in Meadowhall rather than in central Sheffield. The importance of the excellent city of Sheffield is its tradition in training under the Manpower Services Commission, as it used to be called. We have said throughout the passage of the Bill that the various


elements should work closely together. For that reason, the city of Sheffield would be an ideal location for the urban regeneration agency.
If the city of Leeds thinks that it can get up in the debate and make a single-handed bid for the headquarters of the new agency without every other city that is represented here having a go, it must think again. We are really discussing the issue of the agency and not making bids for the crumbs of its headquarters.

Mr. Soley: What about Hammersmith?

Mr. Mudie: What about Hammersmith? I think that I had better put the matter away, which will be a relief to everyone. I rest my case. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that the record shows that Leeds, as usual, was first with a site and with a good description of the facilities available.
When I was a youngster, I had a hero called Nye Bevan. I remember reading one of his books in which he gave a warning about this place to which I did not then pay sufficient heed. He warned about how the procedures and methods of operating here tend to civilise and to blunt anger. My experience has taught me that that happens most of the time. That is a disadvantage in a debate such as this. Someone outside watching the debate and hearing the technical phrases about grants, about the urban regeneration agency and about the urban programme might forget what we are talking about. We are talking about the inner cities programme of the Department of the Environment.
It is worth while to take a minute to go over the basis on which the inner cities programme is framed. The Government have a programme relationship with 57 of our cities which shows that there is no dispute about the problems in those cities. Life can be very hard in the inner cities, and on occasions it defeats people. I live in an inner city and I do not suggest for a second that all inner cities have problems. However, I was a councillor in Leeds for 20 years and it has been my experience that there are many city communities in which people have nasty, brutish lives and get a very bad deal out of society.
The unemployment level for inner cities is often double or treble the level elsewhere. One of the Sunday papers published a chart of how wealthy each city was. Leeds was 98th, which was not bad. When revenue support grant is distributed, Leeds is treated as an affluent city because it contains within its boundaries places such as Wetherby, Otly, Roundhay and Moortown. Such areas help to balance and to mask the realities of life in other parts of the city. Unemployment levels in the inner cities are twice or three times those in the rest of the city. Figures released in the past two weeks show that there is three times the normal level of unemployment among Bangladeshis and Pakistanis in my inner city.
There is invariably a major lack of investment in housing in inner cities which means that there are serious housing problems such as bad roofs, no heating, old sink units, old baths and badly fitting, draughty window frames. All that contributes to an unhealthy housing stock which has effects on the occupants and, above all, on the children. There are effects on education, on health and on future employment. When a young child gets bronchitis because of the lack of heating at home, he requires time off school. That time off school will endanger his academic record and thus his future employment record.
Communities normally have their own primary schools and perhaps their own middle and high schools. The education that the children receive there is not the equal of the education given to children in other parts of the city. I do not for a minute criticise the teachers who work very hard. If 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the children —[Interruption.] I am discussing the inner cities programme. I point out to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, before the Clerk advises you to challenge me, that the people who live in the inner cities are a vital part of them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I make the decisions and I consulted the Clerk. The hon. Gentleman was straying rather wide of the functions of the agency, and I should be grateful if he would return to them.

Mr. Mudie: I shall return to the new clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which extends the aims and objectives of the agency to cover social, economic and environmental matters. I have been dealing with some of the social problems that the inner cities programme is designed to help. The question that we must ask is whether the Bill adds to or improves on existing inner-city initiatives. Does it meet any of our objectives or deal with any of the problems affecting inner cities?
As I said at the outset, although we can discuss such matters in the abstract, it is as well to spend a couple of minutes considering what people's lives are like in our inner cities. Education provision is poor and health is bad. Health records show that someone living in an inner city is likely to die earlier and suffer from more illnesses. The children of an inner-city dweller are likely to be unhealthier than other children. Crime and vandalism are part of inner-city life. In some places people cannot get insurance; their car—if they have a car—is daily and nightly at risk. Elderly people are, and feel themselves to be, at risk.
That is the reality. If the Minister does not agree, I challenge him to say so. I have done no more than to describe my experience of life in my city and in other inner cities. Those are the problems with which the inner-city programme is supposed to deal.
I repeat the question that I asked on Second Reading and in Committee: will the Bill bring relief to the people of the inner cities who are suffering from the problems that I described? I do not think that it will. I think that the proposal was put on the table when land was short and the idea of adding derelict land to the programme seemed very attractive. In 1993, that is no longer the case. The tower cranes have disappeared from the inner cities. A developer coming to a city will find prime development sites available for building. The measure may have been relevant in 1987–88, at the height of the property boom, but it is irrelevant now.
I have a second criticism of the measure. An examination of the range of inner-city initiatives reveals a trend towards property, buildings and land which is well worth considering. City grant, derelict land grant, the development corporations, and city action teams—only shortage of time prevents me from reading in full the official descriptions from the 1992 Department of the Environment annual report of what the organisations do —as well as city challenge consist predominantly of land and property initiatives.
A third disturbing factor that has arisen since Second Reading is of grave concern in the inner cities, and my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport (Ms. Coffey) and for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) have referred to it. The withdrawal of any new schemes from the urban programme and the stopping of any new schemes for section 11 projects gives us a clear indication that, in the Department, the move is towards property and land.
My good Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) referred to the fact that the Government's policy seems to be based on the theory that, if one gets land and puts buildings on it, they will somehow fill up with jobs and some of the prosperity will trickle down. I can only say that, if the trickle-down effect worked, it would surely have been in evidence in 1987–88, at the height of the Lawson boom. In fact, in the inner cities, life was as wretched, unemployment was as high and health and education were as bad.
The new clause would broaden the aims of the initiative and permit the Minister to operate in accordance with the admirable example of the Scottish Development Agency, not only in providing land but in concerning himself with the firms that occupy it. It is interesting to compare two things that have happened in the past week, one of them in Scotland and one in England. In the case of the Hoover factory in Scotland, the SDA became involved. Amazingly, it fought off a French attack on jobs, with the result that the factory in Scotland is staying while one in France is closing. Compare that with what happened in England, where the Prime Minister's response to the plight of Leyland DAF was that it was a matter for the receiver.
The new clause would also permit the Minister to take another look at the social aspect of the inner-city programme, which is in danger of disappearing altogether; if that happens, it will bring tragedy to the inner cities.

Mr. Redwood: We have had a wide-ranging debate on the general objectives of the agency. The hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) at least wanted the urban regeneration agency to come to Leeds. He would be even better advised to help the council to identify land that would be a suitable case for treatment for the URA. Many city councils are doing just that—clear evidence that there is a need for the agency and that many local authorities wish to work with it.
I have always stressed that the arrangements should be based on partnership and have always predicted that there will be quite enough willing volunteers with ideas and schemes to enable Lord Walker, who will find himself much wanted around the country, to get off to a good start and with the money, skills and enthusiasm that the URA will bring to the vital task of city regeneration.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leeds, East does not think that there is enough SSA and grant in Leeds, in comparison with Labour boroughs in London, for example. I assure him that the same formula applies to London as to Leeds and that it takes into account the very factors of need that he identified in his speech or other factors that are substitutes for those. Of course, the grant must be awarded in part in relation to the need that is defined.
It was a pleasure to her two Labour Members—the hon. Members for Leeds, East and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson)—expressing pride in their

respective cities, and to see the introduction of a little competition in the Labour party over the question of to where the URA might move and live.
The issue of bad education will not fall primarily to the URA, and I am surprised that some Opposition Members think that the URA should have widened powers to involve itself in the education process. That is what the hon. Member for Leeds, East seemed to imply. It is true that there are schools in the inner cities whose results are poor and whose children's ambitions are not set high enough. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has introduced a number of proposals to lift the standards of performance in schools throughout the inner cities—a vital part of the regeneration strategy.

Mr. Mudie: We discussed this matter in Committee. In the past, the Minister's Department, through the regeneration programme, has paid for computers which have been used extensively to help primary school children with reading and maths. The Minister's Department has done sterling work in building, outfitting and even staffing child-care facilities which have allowed working mothers to get training that they would not have received if they had not had those facilities through the excellent urban programme. That is why I want the urban programme to continue.

Mr. Redwood: The money which is granted through the general grant and SSA settlement for local authorities gives much more money per pupil in the hard-pressed, inner-city areas than elsewhere. We wish to see those local education authorities rise to the challenge and deliver the standards we think they can achieve to raise the performance in schools. I do not believe that children in the inner cities are less able than children elsewhere. If more money is given, as it is, why can the results not be better?
If individual local authorities wish to bid for additional moneys which have certain educational benefits, there is the city challenge process to which some have responded. Some local authorities have seen the importance of an education strategy within the general regeneration strategy.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: In view of the Minister's insistence that local authorities are interested in raising the standards of education training in the inner cities, why have the Government announced the winding down of section I I moneys granted by the Home Office? The vast proportion of those moneys goes to teachers who are specifically targeted at some of the most deprived people, the black and ethnic majority, which is especially necessary to put that positive action into education and training.

Mr. Redwood: We have substantially expanded the amount of money going to city challenge and the urban programme combined next year, and a number of initiatives are being launched. We have also increased the grant available to local authorities.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough made a number of points in her speech. I agree with her that economic policy geared to recovery is the most vital thing for inner-city renewal and regeneration. That is why I welcome the 6 per cent. interest rates and the signs that economic recovery will now occur and start to lift the economy out of recession. I hope that the hon. Lady also welcomes that as the most important thing to promote recovery.
The hon. Lady complained that £318 million out of the urban budget of £1 billion goes to the south-east, especially to London. It is quite true that money goes to Newham, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Southwark. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) would be the first to say how important that is. If there were more Labour London Members in the House, they would be standing up for their part of the country in the way that some northern Members have done already.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: rose—

Mr. Redwood: I will not give way because I have to make progress.
There is a lot of need in those areas of London. I make no apology for the fact that we are trying to do something about the issues in London, just as we are trying to tackle them in Leeds and other northern cities, including Sheffield, from where the hon. Lady comes.
Two Labour Members made the point that they do not think that we have the right structure of government in the United Kingdom to get grants and subsidies from the European Community. How wrong that is. It is not the system of government. The fact is that we have no objective I region on the mainland of Britain because no area was poor enough when the system was drawn up to qualify for that status. That status gets the lion's share of the money on the good socialist principle that the money should be given to the poorest. Of course, that means primarily the areas to the south of the Community, not areas on the mainland of Britain.
At present, the United Kingdom Government are listening to representations on whether it is possible to lobby successfully for any change in the map, but it will have to be based on sensible criteria. It will still be the case that regional policy in the Community will help the southern member states more than the United Kingdom because, clearly, they are poorer.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: Does the Minister agree that one of the main vehicles for attracting grant to Britain is the Midlands economic forum, which has replaced the West Midlands county council? That forum is one of the few vehicles in the United Kingdom which can define the needs for the area in terms of grant and is one of the mechanisms to ensure that the Government operate within a European system to award the grants.

Mr. Redwood: We have a first-class system of ensuring that we get the grants for which we are eligible. The Government's prime objective is to get a just return from our contributions to the Community for the reasons which everyone understands.
I cannot agree with Opposition Members who say that the Docklands development corporation is a sick joke and has done nothing of value. I suggest that they tell that to those people who are proud of their new homes and pleased with the major housing that has been developed in partnership through the Docklands development corporation. Opposition Members should tell that to the many hundreds of people who have new jobs and the people who have a better built and recreational environment because of what the Docklands development corporation has achieved.
I stand by the remarks I made, which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) tried to

ridicule, when I said that Canary wharf would be a famous name in London. Events of the past few months and years have made Canary wharf even more famous. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that and welcome the day—which will come—when everyone will see that Canary wharf is a development full of tenants, generating jobs and a symbol of the new prosperity of that area.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister recall that, in his book on popular capitalism, he said that the Government would be able to get their money back after 10 years of investment in the Canary wharf project? Rather than the Government getting their money back, does he not accept that the developers are asking for more money to save the project?

Mr. Redwood: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits to see what happens next. A good time horizon was set out in the book. I hope that he will agree with the objective that, if the Government can get some of their money and subsidy back, they should aim to do so. I see the hon. Gentleman agreeing with that point.

Mr. Soley: rose—

Mr. Redwood: I must make progress because there are other important debates to come to which we wish to listen.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey got to the nub of the issue. He said that there is a great deal of vacant land in the cities and that it needs tackling. That is why he should support our version of the urban regeneration agency which is before the House tonight. We agree with the hon. Gentleman and we will do something about it by concentrating those resources.
The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about planning permissions for heliports. I have been told that a heliport may need planning permission, depending on whether it is a development or not. That is an issue into which those who are concerned must look. They would certainly need a Port of London Authority licence which will require negotiation and satisfaction of the authority about the circumstances. The Secretary of State for Transport has reserve powers on noise control. There are a number of issues which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will explore with his local communities.
I should like to reassure the hon. Gentleman about his suggestion that any development by the urban regeneration agency should be considered in an environmental context. Of course, it should and it will because of the way in which housing and urban development and planning legislation are structured.
In Committee and elsewhere, we have made it clear that the normal circumstance is one in which the urban regeneration agency will need planning permission from the local authority. Whatever happens, it will have to be in the context of the unitary development plan or the structure and local plan in the area involved. I assume that all the relevant environmental issues will have been thought through in the local and national proposals and consultations which are undergone for the normal planning process.
In Committee, I also made it clear that, if the development control powers are to pass to the URA, there will be three important guarantees: first, the House must permit those powers to the URA; secondly, those powers will still be within the framework of the UDP or the local


or structure plan; and, thirdly, the URA will proceed by the same means as a local authority would proceed. In most normal cases there will be the usual opportunity for consultation and granting of opinion from the local community.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: rose—

Mr. Redwood: I must press on, because we have to proceed to the next business; otherwise, the hon. Lady knows that I would be happy to give way.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North said that property-led strategies are not enough on their own. I entirely agree, and that is why we have city challenge and big programmes through local authorities with the grants which we offer them and the powers which they have been granted by Parliament, and it is why we have a number of other initiatives in education, tackling crime, training and housing. Of course, there needs to be more than a property-led strategy, but to tackle the 150,000 identified derelict and vacant acres needs vision, money and skill. That is what the urban regeneration agency will bring.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North favours much wider powers for this unelected body. That sits uneasily with the new stress in Labour policy on giving powers to elected Governments and local authorities. We believe in a URA with a focused remit and accountable to the House. The other policies should be implemented through general Government strategy or by local authority powers.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister deal with the other point of my amendment—that the principal duty of the URA should be to the residents of the area affected?

Mr. Redwood: As I envisage the URA working by agreement with the local authority, I assume that the local authority will put proposals to the URA which reflect local opinon; so that point is taken care of. It is also taken care of in the planning process in the way that I have described.
While I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North is at least concentrating on inner-city issues, unlike his boss who seems to concentrate on the monarchy and telling us that he travels first class. the hon. Gentleman is wide of the mark in his new clause, and I urge the House to reject it.

Mr. Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the Minister. I well recall the first time I saw a picture of him with his boyish grin lounging next to a lamp post outside the Palace of Westminster. It was in an article in The Sunday Times in May 1988, in which it was predicted that by the end of the decade he would be the leader of his party. [Interruption.] The Minister says that it was not. The lamp post went on to be used several times by the stray dogs of Westminster and the hon. Gentleman went on to become Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities.
This has been a good debate. We have had several excellent speeches from former leaders of local authorities. I commend the speeches made by hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), who was a councillor for 11 years and chair of economic development for eight years on Sheffield council. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry,

South-East (Mr. Cunningham) is a former leader of Coventry city council and was a councillor for 20 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms. Coffey) was a councillor for eight years and for four years leader of the Labour group on Stockport council. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) was a councillor for 20 years and leader of Leeds city council for 10 years: he will forgive me if I do not spend five minutes praising him—in view of the time, he will have to make do with a few seconds.
All my hon. Friends presented the face of inner-city life in Britain today. They put to the House their views on the Government's inner-city policy in the past few years. As we vote on the new clause, it is worth reminding ourselves of the Government's commitment to our inner-city areas:
We take pride in our cities",
the Conservative party told us in its election manifesto, which was rather oddly entitled, "The Best Future for Britain". On page 38 the Conservative manifesto said:
Right across Britain they have been given a new lease of life and areas that had been run down have been transformed.
Let us examine that extraordinary claim in the light of the Government's present proposals.
The urban regeneration agency, the objectives of which we seek to amend in the new clause, has a long and interesting history. It was not the brainchild of the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities but that of the Secretary of State's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), now President of the Board of Trade. On 16 February 1992, The Sunday Telegraph reported that he was urging the Prime Minister to accept
a powerful body to spearhead … regeneration … an English development agency that would lead the drive to revive the inner cities".
The Prime Minister obviously disagreed. It was explained in the report that his Cabinet colleagues were putting up stiff opposition because they suspected that the right hon. Member for Henley intended to use the URA as a stalking horse for a more interventionist industrial policy after the election. If only that had been true.
The Guardian reported on 23 April 1992 that Lord Walker, who has been appointed to head the agency, intended to use it
to develop a second Whitehall base for Michael Heseltine's brand of industrial intervention … Although Mr. Walker will officially be reporting to Michael Howard … it is expected that he will keep open his private lines of communication with Mr. Heseltine.
That, I presume, explains why every second clause of the Bill says that the URA cannot act without the permission of the Secretary of State. Under the proposals in the Bill, Lord Walker will surely have to ask the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities or the Secretary of State if he may blow his nose.
It is clear that the Minister did not want the President's baby and, having been forced to carry it, has virtually strangled it at birth. New clause 14 is intended to breathe a little life into the agency and to give that life some purpose other than as a facilitator for property developers.
We believe that the statutory objects and functions of the agency should include creating and preserving jobs. That is a task made even more necessary and difficult as the Government proceed with the destruction of 34,000 inner-city jobs through the abolition of the social programme, which was mentioned by so many of my hon.


Friends. Ministers must face the fact that one does not breathe life back into our inner cities merely by reclaiming land and persuading someone to build on it. Much mention has been made of Canary Wharf, which surely must have taught them that lesson.
Some £4 out of every £10 of the Government's urban block expenditure went to docklands in 1991. The
£1.1 billion of public money spent on docklands created 13,500 jobs. By comparison, the urban programme has created and preserved 230,000 jobs since 1985 and currently supports 33,000 jobs at a cost of less than £240 million a year. The Opposition care about inner-city policy because we care about the people who live there. We ask ourselves what the agency will do for them.
Sustainable regeneration will not come about by developing land and waiting for the effects to trickle down to the wretched inhabitants. Sustainable regeneration will come about by creating jobs in the inner cities and by providing the training and the educational and social projects which will enable the inhabitants to fill those jobs and to live decent lives in those areas. Those are exactly the type of projects that the Government are destroying with the destruction of the urban programme. Ministers do not understand that. Indeed, that is why they will oppose the new clause.

Mr. Redwood: How will there be new jobs if there will not be property reconstruction? Do not areas need factories, shops and other new buildings to bring new jobs in?

Mr. Vaz: We do not need any lectures from this Government and this Minister about the provision of jobs when so many jobs have been destroyed by what the Government have done. We have always said that we wanted sustainable jobs which will last for a long time, not the short fixes that the Minister and his policies have ensured have occurred in the inner cities.
On 3 November 1992, the Secretary of State said:
Let me assure the House that I intend the agency to work hand in hand with local authorities."—[Official Report, 3 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 163.]
Where is the duty to consult? He will recall the farce of consultation on the urban programme: a private secretary in the Under-Secretary of State's office wrote to local authority leaders informing them that the programme was to be ended. The voluntary sector, which received some £50 million from the urban programme, did not even get a letter. The Minister will also recall that local authorities and others were encouraged over several months to prepare their bids for the urban programme—bids which cost millions of pounds which the Government still have not managed to refund.
Where is the money for the inner cities? The answer is clear: it has been squandered on the poll tax. Let us never forget that the poll tax was the Secretary of State's invention. The squandering of that money has left nothing for our inner cities. That shows either contempt for the people of our inner cities or breathtaking incompetence: I invite my hon. Friends to decide which more aptly describes the attitude of Ministers. That is why the new clause includes a statutory duty to consult local authorities. The Secretary of State has demonstrated that he is unfit to be left with that responsibility.
6 pm
The Minister, for all his talk of partnership with local authorities, is like a battle-hardened veteran who cannot forget that he used to be at war. He wants the agency to override local authorities' planning powers. A sign of how much he is stuck in the past is that even those organisations which used to support him now see no virtue in going ahead without partnership with the local authorities, or in a central Government quango overriding local democracy. The Conservative party claims to be the party of democracy, but the Bill contains no commitment that the Urban Regeneration Agency's board will include representatives of democratically elected local authorities.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) for drawing my attention to the book written by the Minister. It is interesting to read the first words on page I in chapter I, headed:
Democracy breaks out: the long road to freedom".
Perhaps the Minister can remember them and quote them with me. He wrote:
Around the world there are important stirrings for freedom"—
freedom for everyone except local authorities, which are democratically elected by local people.
Last week I went to Manchester to see the excellent urban programme work carried out by the Labour council there. Councils such as Sheffield, Hull, Leeds, Leicester, Nottingham and Newcastle have used their limited powers to assist urban regeneration. What support have they received from the Secretary of State? He has become the Hughie Green of inner-city policy—turning it into a game of "Opportunity Knocks", handing out peanuts with one hand, while with the other the Government have robbed local authorities of £60 billion since 1979. According to the Government's figures, they plan to cut urban block expenditure by almost 30 per cent. in the next three years; the only numbers rising as fast as the crime and unemployment figures in our inner cities are the number of inner-city programmes with silly names and less resources.
We need a policy for people, not for buildings. We tabled the new clause because we passionately believe that as we move towards the millenium our inner cities deserve much better than the contempt that they have received from this uncaring Government.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes 307.

Division No. 148]
 [6.2 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bermingham, Gerald


Adams, Mrs Irene
Berry, Dr. Roger


Ainger, Nick
Betts, Clive


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Blair, Tony


Allen, Graham
Blunkett, David


Alton, David
Boyce, Jimmy


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Boyes, Roland


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bradley, Keith


Austin-Walker, John
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Barnes, Harry
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Barron, Kevin
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Battle, John
Burden, Richard


Bayley, Hugh
Byers, Stephen


Beckett, Margaret
Caborn, Richard


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bell, Stuart
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Benton, Joe
Cann, Jamie






Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Chisholm, Malcolm
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clapham, Michael
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hoyle, Doug


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Coffey, Ann
Hutton, John


Cohen, Harry
Illsley, Eric


Connarty, Michael
Ingram, Adam


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jamieson, David


Corston, Ms Jean
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cummings, John
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jowell, Tessa


Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)
Keen, Alan


Dafis, Cynog
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Dalyell, Tam
Khabra, Piara S.


Darling, Alistair
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davidson, Ian
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Leighton, Ron


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Lewis, Terry


Denham, John
Litherland, Robert


Dixon, Don
Livingstone, Ken


Dobson, Frank
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dowd, Jim
Loyden, Eddie


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McAllion, John


Eagle, Ms Angela
McAvoy, Thomas


Eastham, Ken
McCartney, Ian


Enright, Derek
Macdonald, Calum


Etherington, Bill
McFall, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McKelvey, William


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fatchett, Derek
McLeish, Henry


Faulds, Andrew
Maclennan, Robert


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McNamara, Kevin


Fisher, Mark
Madden, Max


Flynn, Paul
Mahon, Alice


Foster, Derek (B' p Auckland)
Mandelson, Peter


Foster, Don (Bath)
Marek, Dr John


Foulkes, George
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fraser, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Gapes, Mike
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Garrett, John
Martlew, Eric


George, Bruce
Meacher, Michael


Gerrard, Neil
Meale, Alan


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Michael, Alun


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Godsiff, Roger
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Milburn, Alan


Gordon, Mildred
Miller, Andrew


Gould, Bryan
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Graham, Thomas
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morgan, Rhodri


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morley, Elliot


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Gunnell, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hain, Peter
Mudie, George


Hall, Mike
Mullin, Chris


Hanson, David
Murphy, Paul


Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Harvey, Nick
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Hara, Edward


Henderson, Doug
Olner, William


Heppell, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Parry, Robert


Hinchliffe, David
Patchett, Terry


Hoey, Kate
Pendry, Tom


Home Robertson, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hood, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L.





Pope, Greg
Spearing, Nigel


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Steinberg, Gerry


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stevenson, George


Prescott, John
Stott, Roger


Primarolo, Dawn
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Quin, Ms Joyce
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Radice, Giles
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Raynsford, Nick
Tipping, Paddy


Redmond, Martin
Turner, Dennis


Reid, Dr John
Tyler, Paul


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Vaz, Keith


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'fry NW)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Walley, Joan


Rogers, Allan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rooker, Jeff
Watson, Mike


Rooney, Terry
Welsh, Andrew


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wicks, Malcolm


Ruddock, Joan
Wigley, Dafydd


Salmond, Alex
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Sheerman, Barry
Wilson, Brian


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Winnick, David


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wise, Audrey


Simpson, Alan
Wray, Jimmy


Skinner, Dennis
Wright, Dr Tony


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)



Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mr. John Spellar and


Snape, Peter
Mr. Gordon McMaster.


Soley, Clive

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 160

ADJUSTMENT OF AREAS

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 133,in page 157, line 10, at end insert 'with effect from 1st July 1994.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider also the following amendments: No. 134, in page 157, line 14, at end insert
'and shall satisfy himself that the local authority in question has sufficient additional resources to continue where the level of their provision at least at the level preceding the making of such an order.'.
No. 135, in page 157, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert—
'(a) shall not be exercisable unless a draft of such an order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Mr. Hughes: The amendments form a natural group and relate to the limited subject of the adjustment of areas of urban development corporations. They seek to amend the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, the substantive Act by which urban development corporations were established. At present, the Government can set up, by order, an urban development corporation and, by order, that corporation can cease to exist. In the Bill the Government seek to give themselves the power to alter the boundaries of an urban development corporation once it has been set up. The shorthand phrase for that process is de-designation.
The Minister of State knows that the three subjects on which my hon. Friends and I have tabled amendments are ones that I discussed with him when he last visited Southwark and Bermondsey, and the London Docklands development corporation area to the east of Tower bridge,


some weeks ago. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will support at least the general thrust of the amendments. I hope that I can persuade him to be positive about them, even if he takes them away and changes the wording.
Amendment No. 133 tries to ensure some sort of control over the time scale between the enactment of the Bill—I imagine, later this year—and any partial de-designation of urban development corporation areas. There have been various rumours over the years, and the current rumour is that the Government may well want to de-designate an area when they have finished their regeneration work while leaving the rest of the urban development corporation to continue with certain powers. I understand that argument and do not object to it in principle.
The amendment seeks to provide a natural time for the first such de-designation. I immediately concede that I think that, technically, the slightly better wording would have been
with effect from no earlier than 1st July 1994
instead of
with effect from 1st July 1994.
Nearly every year in May—certainly next year—there are local government elections. Therefore, the logical time to change the status of an area currently within an urban development corporation would be to coincide with a suitable date when the local administration could plan to take it over.
To take the scenario that I know best, were there to be a local election in the London borough of Southwark in 1994—as there is scheduled for the first Thursday of May—it would be sensible for the Government, if they want to de-designate an area at a date after the Bill is enacted, to take the following action. They should de-designate only after leaving a decent interval after enactment so that the authority has plenty of notice. In addition, they should do so at a date that is relevant to the local authority cycle—the election cycle runs from May to May.
That process would allow the Government to tell Southwark, Tower Hamlets or Newham that they want to take a part of the district out of the UDC and hand it back to the authority from 1 July or thereafter. That would mean that, during the election campaign, what had been done and would be done in the area would constitute a natural local election issue.
The future of de-designated development corporation sites is an issue concerning the local electorate. Among other things, they could vote on the alternative programmes for the area when it returns to local authority control. Whether it is 1 July or later is a matter of detail.
I am not arguing that it should be as soon after the local elections as 1 July in London or anywhere else. I am arguing only two things: that there should be a decent interval after the Bill becomes law, and that it should be after a date which allows for local consideration and democratic participation. Ultimately it is right that the areas should go back to local authority control.
Amendment No. 134 again concerns a matter about which there has been consultation with Government and about which the Minister and his colleagues have been addressed not just by me but by various local authorities. It involves a simple, though important issue for the local authorities and communities affected—the funding before and after an area leaves an urban development

corporation. I will not stand by the beauty of the drafting. Indeed, there is a typographical error in the second line: the word "where" should be "with".
Again I will take the example which I know best, Surrey docks within the London Docklands development corporation. Certain funding comes from the taxpayer to the corporation through Government and is used for everything from road building and environmental improvements to the reclamation of land. Some money is used to fund nurseries or community projects. The local authority should not be financially disadvantaged when that area is handed back.
Any funding which an urban development corporation had provided should be transferred to the local authority, otherwise there will be the unsatisfactory position in which an area is returned to council control but the council is given no dowry, as it were, with it. If there is no alteration in the standard spending assessment or in the funding from central Government, a council with additional responsibilities will be disadvantaged, and the community will also be disadvantaged. Projects which had been started and continued on the basis of certain funding would be at risk.
The amendment is about the security of funding programmes during the transition. The Government are alert to the problem. In an area like mine, in the top 10 in the country with unemployment at 20 per cent., there is huge environmental disadvantage. I do not think the Minister was attacking me earlier. Clearly there have been benefits from having an urban regeneration agency in place. Some areas have been improved substantially environmentally and new houses have been provided. We do not want to end up with an infrastructure which we cannot sustain and which becomes grim. We do not want parks which we cannot look after or an environment which deteriorates rapidly and takes us back to where we were. That would not be in the interests of anybody.
As a PS to the debate, may I remind the Minister that when he was in Southwark he visited one of the better-off parts of the urban development area—around Butler's wharf. In such an area the community might rise to providing its own funding, but in other areas that would not be possible because, for example, many people are on income support.
Amendment No. 135 is straightforward. When urban development corporations are set up, they are debated in the House. Even when small areas of land are acquired compulsorily, there is an automatic debate either in the House or in Committee. The amendment would ensure that the House had an automatic opportunity to debate in full session, even though it would probably be after 10 pm, any proposal by Government to use the power in the clause to de-designate partially.
I hope that the draftsmen and women who advise the Government will not find it difficult to agree that that would be a reasonable procedure. I hope that there is no constitutional bar. Again, it is not a London issue because there are many development corporations. The House should have the opportunity to debate any communities which might be the subject of a change of status before a decision is made.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise these matters. I hope that all the amendments will receive a positive welcome.

Mr. Redwood: The intention of clause 160, which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wishes to amend, is to encourage de-designation where the work is complete or more or less complete, and where the local authority can come to an agreement with the urban development corporation for the transfer of that part area back to local authority control. I know that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that general measure which my right hon. and learned Friend and I included after hearing the views of local authorities adjacent to UDC areas. Some are keen to negotiate such transfers.
On the amendments, I am reluctant to put in a time limit. The effect of amendment No. 133 would be that we could not partially de-designate prior to 1 July 1994. It is conceivable that a local authority and a UDC could reach an earlier agreement. If they did, I would be happy for de-designation to go ahead. I would not wish to get in the way of local wishes. If there had not been willing agreement, it is unlikely that we would get to the partial de-designation before 1 July 1994 under the powers approved by both Houses in due course. De-designation would arise only if there was agreement, which deals with the hon. Gentleman's worry about the local democratic effect.
On the question of resources, there has to be negotiation between the local authority and the urban development corporation concerned. Over the last nine months of my discussions with them, I have been asking all UDCs to think at each point, when planning or developing a new proposal, about the long-term liabilities and about whether those can pass to the private sector or whether they would willingly pass to the local authority.
One advantage of partnership and local authority membership of UDC boards is that the issues can be discussed at an early stage and a local authority can indicate whether it would be happy in due course to take over a park or a recreational facility, or whether it thinks that the revenue and maintenance cost would be too large, which would lead, I trust, to a modification of the scheme.
As to the powers, I think that the negative resolution proposal in the Bill gives sufficient parliamentary accountability. This is different from setting up a new body which is taking away powers or duties from a local authority and giving them to a UDC. That procedure clearly needs the techniques which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. This is about restoring local democratic accountability for an area which has been handled temporarily by a UDC, so I do not think that it needs an affirmative resolution.
Of course, Parliament is sovereign and can, if it wishes, discuss these matters or express its view should there be contention or difficulty. In most cases—indeed, I hope in every case—it will be done by agreement. I trust that local authorities will make sensible proposals to return the areas to local democratic control once the regeneration work has been wholly or largely completed.
I urge the House to reject the amendments, but will take note of the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am aware of the need to proceed, where possible, by agreement with the local community.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Briefly, and with the leave of the House, may I say that I am grateful to the Minister for being generally positive and for some of the encouraging things which he said about the need for agreement on timing and resource allocation. Although I think that I

could work out an amendment that he would find difficult to resist on the arguments that he has put, I will note his comments and seek advice. There will be an opportunity later in the passage of the Bill to seek to move amendments which he may find acceptable.
In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 20

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 77, in page 238, line 37, at end insert—

'Land Compensation Act 1973 (c. 26)

. After section 12 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 (tenants entitled to enfranchisement or extension under Leasehold Reform Act 1967) there shall be inserted the following section—

"Tenants participating in collective enfranchisement, or entitled to individual lease extension, under Part I of Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.

12A.—(1) A tenancy to which subsection (2) or (3) below applies ("a qualifying tenancy") shall be treated as an owner's interest as defined in section 2(4) above whether or not the unexpired term on the date of service of the notice of claim is of the length there specified.
(2) This subsection applies to a tenancy if the tenant, on the relevant date—

(a) is in respect of the tenancy a qualifying tenant for the purposes of Chapter I of Part I of the 1993 Act (collective enfranchisement); and
(b) by virtue of the tenancy, either—

(i) is a participating tenant in relation to a claim to exercise the right to collective enfranchisement under that Chapter; or
(ii) is one of the participating tenants on whose behalf the acquisition by the nominee purchaser has been made in pursuance of such a claim.

(3) This subsection applies to a tenancy if the tenant, on the relevant date and in respect of the tenancy, is a qualifying tenant for the purposes of Chapter II of Part I of the 1993 Act (individual right to acquire new lease) who—

(a) has on or before that date given notice under section 38 of that Act (notice by qualifying tenant of claim to exercise right); and
(b) has not acquired a new lease before that date.

(4) If no claim is made in respect of a qualifying tenancy before the claimant has ceased to be entitled to it in consequence of a lease being granted to him by the nominee purchaser or, as the case may be, under Chapter II of Part I of the 1993 Act, the claimant may make a claim in respect of the qualifying tenancy as if he were still entitled to it.
(5) No claim shall be made by virtue of subsection (4) above after the claimant has ceased to be entitled to the lease referred to in that subsection, but such a claim may be made before the first claim day if it is made before the claimant has disposed of that lease and after he has made a contract for disposing of it.
(6) Compensation shall not be payable before the first claim day on any claim made by virtue of subsection (5) above.
(7) Any notice of a claim made by virtue of this section shall contain, in addition to the matters mentioned in section 3 above, a statement that it is made in respect of a qualifying tenancy as defined in this section and, if made by virtue of subsection (4) or (5) above, sufficient particulars to show that it falls within that subsection.


(8) In relation to a claim made by virtue of subsection (4) above, section 4(4)(a) above shall have effect as if the reference to the date of service of notice of the claim were a reference to the relevant date.
(9) In this section—

(a) "the 1993 Act" means the Housing and Urban Development Act 1993; and
(b) "participating tenant", "nominee purchaser" and "the acquisition by the nominee purchaser" shall be construed in accordance with sections 12, 13 and 34(2) of that Act respectively.".'.—[Sir George Young.]

Schedule 21

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 78, in page 242, line 37, at end insert—


'1980 c. 51.
The Housing Act 1980.
In section 141, "3,". In Schedule 21, para-graph 3.'.

No. 97, in page 243, line 46, column 3, leave out '177(3)' and insert
'177, in subsection (2)(b) the words "or the Corporation" and in subsection (3)'.

No. 98, in page 243, line 49, column 3, at end insert—
'In section 180, the words "the Corporation" and
"Corporation".

No. 79, in page 244, line 21, at end insert—

'1985 c. 71.
The Housing (Consequential Provisions) Act 1985.
In section 6(3), "12,". In Schedule 2, paragraph 12.'.

No. 112, in page 244, line 24, column 3, at beginning insert—
'In section 17, in subsection (1), the words "and exercised by".'.

No. 99 in page 244, line 36, column 3, at end insert—
'In section 79(2)(b), the words "in accordance with section 84 below". '—[Sir George Young.]

Clause 169

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 96, in page 160, line 40, leave out '123' and insert '120 to'.—[Sir George Young.]

New clause 4

JURISDICTION OF SHERIFF IN SCOTLAND

' . In section 299 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987, at the end of subsection 1(B), there shall be added—

"(1A) In particular in any such proceedings for the recovery of damages or compensation where it can be shown that the public sector authority has been derelict in its duty to issue a notice of defect to a prospective purchaser of a defective house, the sheriff shall have the express power to issue a decree applying the remedies available under section 278 of this Act.". '—[Mr. Kirkwood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am aware that this is an important strategic debate about housing and urban planning. I am also conscious of the fact that Third Reading is yet to come and that hon. Members want to reach that stage as soon as possible.

However, I wish to take a few minutes of the time of the House to deal with what I believe to be an unfortunate matter in my constituency with which only Parliament can deal.
I could detain the House for some time discussing the background to the circumstances which have provoked me to table my new clause, but I will deal briefly with the matter as I know that the Minister is aware of it and has taken an interest in it. I pay tribute to his officials for the help that they have given me and for their understanding of the complexities of the matter. I hope that the Minister will continue to take an interest and that he will be as sympathetic as possible.
The new clause would give explicit and additional powers to the sheriff in the Scottish courts in adjudicating matters which come under the original Housing Defects Act 1984, as amended by the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987. Those Acts deal with former council houses which are deemed to be statutorily defective. The new clause is necessary because of a sequence of events which have occurred through a combination of bad luck and a simple omission by a local authority.
The results have been dire in the way in which they have affected the future of 20 families living in Whitson-Fairhurst-type properties in Hawick in my constituency. It is no exaggeration to say that the lives of those people, as well as their homes, have been blighted by what has happened. All the families are previous local authority tenants; all of them exercised their right to buy, as they were entitled to do, under the 1981 legislation; all live in houses which are superficially desirable—well kept, well decorated and well tended—but those houses are now known to be statutorily defective.
Under the original 1984 Act, tenants seeking to buy their homes had a statutory right to be told that the effective market value of their homes was nil. I do not want to apportion blame, but for whatever reason the families concerned were not told about their statutory right and in good faith they took out mortgages on houses which are not saleable in today's market. Because of that act of omission, and because the truth about their properties has only just come to light, they have missed the deadline for the statutory protection which would have been afforded to them under the 1984 Act. Because they have no alternative, they are now forced to fall back on common law and the provisions of the 1987 Act in taking their case to the courts.
The architects of the 1987 Act specifically and properly included a clause giving the sheriff the right to adjudicate on any disputes involving defective houses. However, neither the architects of the Act nor the Ministers who took it through the House could have foreseen the effect of such a simple but damning omission on the families involved. The problem for the lawyers and, indeed, for the sheriff when he adjudicates on any such case, is how to quantify the loss that those families have sustained. I am a former provincial lawyer, so I understand only too well that it is an impossible calculation. No scales of justice are available to the sheriff, the lawyers or anyone else to help to make a fair and clear judgment about the extent of the loss sustained by those families.
On the one hand, having considered precisely that problem, Parliament made it clear that nothing less than 95 per cent. of the unaffected market value would be sufficient recompense for people in that position. On the other hand, the sheriff will be adjudicating on an action for


damages under common law and he will not have access to the 1984 Act, as amended by the 1987 Act. He does not have any easy way of deciding the level of compensation that should be offered to those families. I understand that my new clause may be technically defective, but the intention behind it is to give the sheriff the additional option of providing the same remedy as would have been available if those families had had the protection of the 1984 Act. The new clause is carefully crafted and controlled to ensure that there is a limit on the amount of compensation.
The problem has been distressing for the families involved, but I again acknowledge the departmental officials who have helped me to pick my way through the problem. The local authority and the insurers advising it have all been doing their level best to find a remedy. The solicitors acting for the families have also been doing their best, taking account of Lanark council's opinion, to obtain an effective remedy. Everyone has done everything possible under existing law to provide an effective remedy, but no one outside the realms of central Government has the power to do so. There needs to be some form of Government intervention to provide that remedy.
The new clause is the only way that I could think of to provide a means of avoiding the problem of retrospection. It would make a power available to the sheriff in future. The families are currently considering whether to accept an offer from the insurance company which is advising the council. That offer is not ungenerous, so far as it goes, but if the additional power provided by the new clause were on the statute book by the summer—the timetable envisaged for the Bill—any court proceedings initiated by the families in the autumn, for example, would have a better prospect than they have at present.
Obviously, learned counsel would have to advise the agents individually, but if the Government could look favourably at least on the spirit of the amendment, that would give fresh hope to a group of honest citizens who through no fault of their own have been through a financially and emotionally trying experience and who not unreasonably look to Parliament for some effective redress.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I will not reply at length to the hon. Gentleman, but I have listened carefully to his remarks and he presented a persuasive case. It is my intention, if this is at all possible, to bring forward a Government amendment in another place if necessary. Given that undertaking, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his new clause.
We shall consider issues involving dates, and all the implications, and we intend to bring forward a suitable amendment in another place if necessary. It is my belief that that will be necessary. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution; we shall do our best.

Mr. Kirkwood: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Order Jar Third Reading read. —[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Our general election manifesto made clear our commitment to Britain's housing and to the reinvigoration of our inner cities. The Bill contains far-reaching measures to achieve that. It takes forward no fewer than 10 specific manifesto commitments which will increase the opportunity for our citizens to own and to control the houses in which they live, which secure a better deal for council tenants, and which will help to transform our cities and to restore the civic pride that too often has been strangled by years of municipal socialism.
In 1980 we introduced the right to buy. Labour's eventual conversion to the right to buy was as inevitable and predictable as its initial outright opposition. Labour could not stand in the way of more than I million council tenants who eagerly seized the opportunity to own their own homes.
The rents-to-mortgage scheme introduced by the Bill will give tenants a new route into home ownership. Labour described those proposals as irrelevant. It does not care about council tenants who want to buy but who cannot afford to do so outright. We do care. We will re-launch the drive to home ownership and we will make sure that tenants are well aware of their new rights. Many will think that now is the time to take advantage of low prices, low interest rates, and generous discounts. The only question is when Labour will see the benefit this time. Will it do so before the next election, or will it wait until it loses that election and then continue its salami tactics of adopting our policies bit by bit?
Will Labour Members say of this Bill, as they said of so many others, "Aren't you lucky that you didn't vote for us last time? Think of all those mistaken policies—the error of which we now concede—that we would have thrust upon the people of this country if they had been foolish enough to vote for us at the election."

Mr. John Battle: What is the Government's view of the 70,000 council leaseholders who exercised their right to buy but who now find that they have a massive repair lease, which means that some receive bills as high as £58,000 each? As a result, many of those tenants are in danger of losing their homes. What will the Government do about that? Many believe that those tenants were not well informed by the Government when they exercised their right to buy.

Mr. Howard: I well understand why the hon. Gentleman is keen to divert attention from the Bill's provisions and his party's abysmal record. He knows perfectly well the answer to his question—that we are engaged in discussions with the Council of Mortgage Lenders to see what steps can be taken to alleviate the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I strongly urge him to desist from his diversionary tactics and to return—painful though this may be for him—to the subject matter of the Bill.
Our manifesto promised to revolutionise the management of council housing. The Bill does precisely that. It gives tenants the right to manage—a right undreamed of by Labour. On Sunday, the Leader of the Opposition said that his party should adopt a


new politics that puts people first, that rejects dogma and embraces political common sense solutions".
Alas, the right hon. and learned Gentleman forgot to tell his hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench, and in particular the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), that bureaucracy was outmoded and dogma was to be rejected. The hon. Member for Leeds, West still wants to keep the ineffectual veto that we are replacing with a right to real involvement in the management process from start to finish. He still puts the interests of local authorities, however inefficient they are, before the interests of tenants.

Mr. Soley: Will the Secretary of State answer a question that other Ministers have consistently refused to answer? I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not good at answering questions, but perhaps he will try. If a council is providing a good service and the tenants are happy with that service, why should they have to pay to be transferred when they do not want that? At the same time, a private sector tenant may have a landlord who has been harassing him imprisoned but the tenant still has no right to transfer. When will the Secretary of State take tenants' rights seriously?

Mr. Howard: There is a simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. If the council's management is as good as the hon. Gentleman suggested, it would win the contract. That is the essence of competitive tendering—a concept which remains wholly alien to Labour, despite recent attempts to pretend to embrace it.
Part I of the Bill was considered at length yesterday. I believe that there is widespread acceptance of the principle of leasehold reform, even among those who expressed doubts about some of the detailed provisions of the Bill. Our proposals are directed clearly at people who have long leases at a low rent and who are generally regarded as owners of their premises. They will not have an adverse impact on the renting market, which we want to prosper. I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Jill Knight) on that point.

Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that it is not the Government's intention to move into the rest of the rented market? I refer particularly to his statement that the object is that all tenants should
own and … control the houses in which they live".
Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it amply clear that he is not talking about the private rented sector?

Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity to clarify that aspect and to give the reassurance that she seeks. As we made plain during the passage of this legislation, there is a clear distinction between the private rented sector to which my hon. Friend referred, which we are determined to encourage, and those who live in the specific categories of houses and flats to which the legislation will apply. I accept my hon. Friend's point and give her the reassurance that she seeks.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I draw to the attention of the Secretary of State a situation affecting 19 of my constituents whose ground landlord is the Church in Wales, and whose houses have been made unsaleable by the Church's demands and its attempt to enfranchise them

at a cost of £17,000 in respect of houses valued at between £100,000 and £150,000. The leases are due to revert in 2003. According to the Church's advisers, that means that £17,000 must be paid for a lease. Leaseholders cannot sell a house on that basis; nor can they enfranchise themselves, because who has £17,000 to spend? Two years ago, £1,400 was being asked; what are people to do now that the price has shot up to £17,000?

Mr. Howard: I am astonished at the hon. Gentleman's question. He should be well aware that, ultimately, such matters are decided by leasehold tribunals. If his constituents ae not satisfied with the terms offered by their freeholder, they should take the case to a tribunal.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Howard: No, I must make progress.
I was dealing with the points made by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I think that I had already mentioned their anxieties about the terms on which enfranchisement will take place. Their chief fear was that leaseholders might somehow acquire their homes at a discount. I entirely accept that that would be wrong, and I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that it will not happen.
The marriage value—which is the element of compensation at issue—is the extra value released when the freehold and leasehold interests are brought together in a single pair of hands. In the absence of enfranchisement, there is no marriage value, so the freeholder will have lost nothing if the leaseholders retain an element of that value when enfranchisement goes ahead. There is no discount; there is merely a sharing of the extra value. The precise share for each party will depend on the circumstances in each case. Often 50:50 will be appropriate, but in some cases the landlord should get more. For example, if the lease has very little of its term left to run, the landlord should probably get nearly all the marriage value.
The Bill allows for that. It will replicate the open market. In the case of flats, we have added the safeguard that the landlord must always receive at least half the marriage value, but if he can convince the leasehold valuation tribunal that in the market he would receive more, the tribunal must give him more.
The Bill addresses important problems, and it does so by proceeding with clear manifesto commitments. I know that Conservative Members who have some misgivings about the leasehold reform provisions have weighed that point carefully. Opposition Members, however, are in a state of total confusion. Do they oppose leasehold reform? Do they oppose a vigorous drive to develop derelict land, led by a new agency working with local authorities and the private sector? Do they oppose giving council tenants the right to turn their rents into mortgages?
We have been told by the hon. Member for Leeds, West that compulsory competitive tendering for housing management is unacceptable—a view echoed by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). Last night, as a result of mighty effort, the hon. Member for Leeds, West managed to persuade 55 of his hon. Friends to vote with him on a wrecking amendment. It was, however, extremely inconsiderate of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who is Labour's full-time spokesman on the monarchy, not to tip off his hon. Friend before giving his recent interview to Tribune. He must know that Tribune is


not just any old magazine but the approved vehicle for sneaking out major policy U-turns—in this instance, on compulsory competitive tendering.
The hon. Member for Blackburn is in favour of compulsory competitive tendering—or so he told us in the pages of Tribune—while the hon. Member for Leeds, West is against it. In which direction are his hon. Friends to turn? Are they to follow the hon. Member for Blackburn, or the hon. Member for Leeds, West? Should they come, or should they go? Should they vote yes, or should they vote no? We await their decision with interest.
I cannot conclude without referring to the distinguished contribution made by Liberal Democrats to the debate on housing. After attending five Standing Committee sittings, their housing spokesman, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones), told the magazine Inside Housing, that the Committee was "a bag of worms", and that he had no intention of returning to it. Of course, we could not expect the hon. Gentleman to be present this evening. True to his word, the hon. Gentleman missed the next 20 sittings. Hon. Members can imagine the intense expectation when he arrived in the Chamber yesterday. The House hung on his every word—or it would have done if he had said anything; lapsing into Trappist mode, he sat through the debate but remained silent throughout. It would be impossible to identify a more eloquent comment on his party's ability to contribute a single thought to our deliberations on these important matters.
The Bill will play an important part in regenerating our cities. It will give council tenants the opportunity to buy a stake in the homes in which they live; it will allow hundreds of thousands of private leaseholders the opportunity to gain control over the management of their homes; and it will bring about a much-needed improvement in the management of public housing by introducing the spur of competition. All those important reforms are contained in the Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Jack Straw: I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House, for my inability to be present for speeches about important amendments and new clauses.
I went to Nottingham this morning. I caught a train that was due to arrive at St. Pancras at 3.15; it arrived at 5.50 pm. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Privatise."] I had anticipated that ritual chant from Conservative Members. In fact, the delay was caused by the under-investment with which we have charged the Government, and by the semi-privatisation that they have already carried out. Following a total train failure caused by clapped-out equipment, the passengers were forced to suffer the indignity of knowing that, just up the line, locomotives were ready to take the train back to Wellingborough station. Because of the so-called business railway, however, none was available, so we sat there for two and a half hours.
Yesterday, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) said:
It is a matter of considerable regret to me that the Bill is modelled on a Labour precedent, the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 … A number of us find it difficult to accept that a Conservative Government are retabling a socialist measure which has been described by Professor Wade QC"—
an acknowledged administrative lawyer—
as a form of 'expropriation'
which

can scarcely be said to have been for public purposes".—[Official Report, 9 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 834–35.]
The hon. Gentleman has been wrong in the past, and I am afraid that he was wrong yesterday. Would that this were the measure that we would have tabled if we had won the general election in April—a measure that would have given almost all flat leaseholders the right to enfranchise. We would have ensured that the test on non-residential floor space was raised, and, in particular, we would have rescinded the low rent test.
Yesterday, a Labour amendment and new clause were moved which would have led to the abandonment of the low rent test. That followed debate in Committee. Although, like the Secretary of State, I was not a member of the Committee, my hon. Friends were led to believe that the Minister for Housing and Planning understood the powerful arguments against the iniquity of the test—arguments for a view shared by a number of Conservative Members.
It is my belief that the Minister of State—once one of the great left-wingers of the Conservative party, who, I realise, cannot answer for—this understands and agrees with the case we make but that he was overruled by others, no doubt including the Secretary of State, under pressure from the Duke of Westminster tendency of the Conservative party. We should like to know what were and are the arguments against our amendment on the low rent test. Certainly they were not advanced in debate last night, nor were they put forward in Committee. There is no case for a low rent test—particularly the one in this Bill, which enables unscrupulous landlords so to set their ground rents as to escape the Bill's provisions and deny tenants the right to enfranchise.
Last night, the Minister for Housing and Planning asked me what our attitude on Third Reading would be. I told him that if he were to accept the argument for the amendment and the new clause in respect of the low rent test, we should support the Third Reading. That remains our position. But, in the event, we shall not be supporting the Third Reading. Our position in this regard is entirely consistent, not least because the Government have refused to give full rights of enfranchisement to all holders of long leases.

Mr. Howard: I should like to ensure that I have understood the hon. Gentleman's position. Will he confirm that, because not quite all the people whom he would like to see given the right to enfranchisement will achieve that right under the Bill, he wants the right to be given to no one?

Mr. Straw: That is a ludicrous parody. There are other reasons for our opposition. We need means of expressing our very serious opposition, on behalf of disfranchised leaseholders, to the provisions of the Bill. We can do so by voting against the Third Reading, as we voted against the Second Reading in the hope that changes would be made in Committee.
I should like to turn to the extraordinary position that the Government have got themselves into in respect of compulsory competitive tendering for housing management. The Secretary of State referred to my Tribune interview. The entire interview was tape-recorded by the editor. The direct quotations of my words are correct. The statement—in reported form—that compulsory competitive tendering and the council tax would be retained is erroneous. I did not say that, nor would I, as how and


when policy is settled are matters for the Labour party as a whole. Those are not things for me to proclaim in an interview for Tribune. An apology from the editor will appear in this week's issue of the paper. In the interview I also made it clear that we are opposed to compulsory competitive tendering for housing management.

Mr. Howard: Why has it taken the hon. Gentleman a week to decide whether the Tribune report was correct?

Mr. Straw: What I have just said to the House was said to journalists last Friday, when the interview appeared.

Mr. Eric Pickles: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No. We are due to vote very soon.
The Secretary of State made much of the apparent management rights that he is ready to give tenants. He described as ineffective a veto giving tenants the right to decide who should manage their estates, despite the fact that such a veto was written into the 1985 Act by many of his hon. Friends, albeit with our support. What emerged, particularly in the answer that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), was that his real concern was that the veto, far from being ineffective, would be all too effective. It will give tenants the right to decide, before the matter goes to competitive tendering, who should be their managers.
It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to say, as he sought a moment ago to say, that the tender price will determine who should manage an estate. The tenants want an absolute right to decide before the matter goes to tender. We are not arguing that the council should have that right; we are arguing that the tenants should have it.
On the question of urban regeneration, our concern is that there should be a much wider base and a much more democratic agency, as we proposed in new clause 14. It is a matter for great regret that the Government rejected that proposal. The need for regeneration of urban areas is overwhelming, and the Government's half-baked policies are not good enough. After all, they virtually wound up the urban programme, and the Secretary of State is currently shuffling to abandon the third phase of city challenge. On this matter, I should be very happy to take an intervention from him. Yesterday, in reply to a question from me, he talked about a possible third phase. We should all be pleased to hear a categorical assurance that there will be a similarly sized third phase of city challenge.

Mr. Howard: We have more than once made it clear that we have not abandoned city challenge and that we shall take a decision about a third round at the appropriate time.
As the hon. Gentleman invited me to intervene. I should like to press him a little further about what he said a few moments ago concerning his attitude to compulsory competitive tendering and to the council tax. He said that all his words reported in quotation marks by Tribune were accurate. Well, what he said—reported in quotation marks —about compulsory competitive tendering was that he had seen the case for it in respect of the provision of basic services such as refuse collection. What he said—reported in quotation marks—about the council tax was that he could see that the underlying principle was okay.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions, even from Secretaries of State, should be short.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State failed to read beyond the remark that the underlying principle was okay. The property tax U-turn was not done by the Opposition. We have argued for years for a property tax. On the other hand, the Secretary of State went round the country for five years evangelising on the merits of the poll tax. He it was who said that the poll tax was the fairest and most equal of all taxes and who, in speech after speech, damned the idea of a property tax based on capital values. I am delighted that he has at last been converted to the idea of a property tax. What I want to know is whether he believed it then and whether he believes it now. Is his conversion a genuinely Pauline one?
The Secretary of State spoke of manifesto pledges made by the Government just 10 months ago. He did not say that, since April 1992, 450,000 building workers have gone on the dole, that 150,000 people are in long-term mortgage arrears and face the ever-growing threat of repossession, that 65,000 homeless families are in temporary accommodation, that we still have the scandalous spectacle of people sleeping rough on the streets, and that house building in the private and public sectors is at the lowest level for a decade.
We shall vote against the Bill because it takes away tenants' rights, because it does not provide an effective programme for urban regeneration, because it fails fully to enfranchise leaseholders and, above all, because it fails to do anything about the underlying housing crisis, of which the Government are the architect.

Mr. Michael Jopling: rose—

Hon. Members: Come on!

Mr. Jopling: If the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) can each take 10 minutes on Third Reading, I do not see why time should not be available to Back Benchers.
I do not think that I can remember a Bill being introduced by my party that made me feel more ashamed. This is a poor Bill. I have opposed it throughout, and although my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made some welcome adjustments to its provisions on leasehold reform, I am very disappointed that he has not been able to go further.
I cannot accept that a landlord should be made to sell a property to a leaseholder against his will. The Bill does not fairly compensate him for when a leaseholder exercises his option of enfranchisement. Unless the Secretary of State can give clearer guidance to the valuation tribunals, it is likely that they will gravitate towards the 50:50 split of the marriage value, using the flawed argument that my right hon. and learned Friend has advanced about a willing buyer and willing seller. That will not achieve fairness. The willing seller and willing buyer basis is flawed when a transaction is a forced one between two private citizens.
I hope that before the Bill is enacted the Secretary of State will be able to improve those terms and that the resulting average price that is paid will ultimately be nearer 100 per cent. of the marriage value. I have been given an example of a flat with a freehold vacant possession value


of £750,000. If a landlord sells a long lease of 70 years at, say, a value of £630,000 and at a rent of £500 a year, he will forgo £120,000 of that value. I have been advised, using the criterion that the tribunals use, that after the first year of the lease the loss to the freeholder would be just under £56,000 and that the overnight windfall gain to the leaseholder would be the same. I do not see that that is a fair and proper basis on which to proceed, which is why I am astonished that the party to which I belong has introduced such legislation.
I was in the House when the 1967 Bill was enacted. I know very well that if the Labour party had introduced legislation such as this Bill, there would have been fury and furore from this party and it would have been opposed root and branch. For that reason, if the Government want the Bill, they will have to get it without my assistance.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall be as brief as the right. hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), but I shall not take the same view. I hope that the Secretary of State, having complained yesterday about the Trappist tendencies of my colleagues, will not complain if I now say something: he cannot have it both ways.
The most controversial aspect of the Bill relates to the point that was made by the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. The attitude that he and other Conservative Members take, though understandable in logic, is less understandable in politics, as they did not take a similar view of tenants' rights when we were debating the right to buy from local authorities. Local authorities suffered as much as private landlords might if the Bill is enacted.
The inconsistency is remarkable—not that consistency would be a prize awarded to either Front Bench, for reasons that are evident after tonight's speeches. The Secretary of State knows the position that my colleagues and I adopted, so the advice that I shall soon give my colleagues is predictable. On Second Reading, we supported the Government, making it clear that we supported some parts of the Bill.
We support the proposals for enfranchisement, although we regret that the Government did not amend them to get rid of the low-rent test. We support attention being given to urban regeneration, but we do not like the mechanism adopted because of its undemocratic nature. We support the idea of more tenants' management but oppose the lack of tenants' having the final say over compulsory competitive tendering. We do not believe that that compulsion should be at the behest of the Government; it should be the decision of those affected.
One must therefore make a choice between passing a Bill with many provisions that one does not like or blocking it in the hope that the Government will improve it when it returns. The choice for us is clear: we will seek to block the Bill by opposing Third Reading. We hope that, if it is defeated, the Government will learn the lessons of the arguments put in the House and outside and will become much more accountable and democratic, not only in their housing policy, but in their policy for urban regeneration.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: If it had been put to me at an election meeting that, within months of that election, the party that I support would introduce a Bill that legislated between two private individuals who had had a perfectly good and legitimate contract to force one against his will to sell to another, and then not at a fair price, I would—and I can speak for my hon. Friends on this—have hotly denied it. Yet that is what the Bill does in various ways.
We discussed yesterday in great detail the subjects of compensation and residence. Is it right that the Bill should apply to foreigners, companies and people who are well able to look after themselves? Is it right that legislation should break up the heritage estates of our great capital city?
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is deluding himself if he believes that the principle of the Bill will not affect the minds of investors who are seeking to erect or create property to let. They will say that the Conservative Government, in spite of what they claim, are unreliable and will enfranchise tenants. That is a terrible mistake. The decline of the rented sector has been one of the worst problems in the housing market and is very much the fault of the Opposition, whose belief in security of tenure has taken out of the market the capacity for the less well paid to have a decent home.
I support what our manifesto said, but the Bill is the wrong way to achieve it. I shall certainly not support it.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 262.

Division No. 148]
 [6.2 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bermingham, Gerald


Adams, Mrs Irene
Berry, Dr. Roger


Ainger, Nick
Betts, Clive


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Blair, Tony


Allen, Graham
Blunkett, David


Alton, David
Boyce, Jimmy


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Boyes, Roland


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bradley, Keith


Austin-Walker, John
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Barnes, Harry
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Barron, Kevin
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Battle, John
Burden, Richard


Bayley, Hugh
Byers, Stephen


Beckett, Margaret
Caborn, Richard


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bell, Stuart
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Benton, Joe
Cann, Jamie






Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Chisholm, Malcolm
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clapham, Michael
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hoyle, Doug


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Coffey, Ann
Hutton, John


Cohen, Harry
Illsley, Eric


Connarty, Michael
Ingram, Adam


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Corbett, Robin
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jamieson, David


Corston, Ms Jean
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cummings, John
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jowell, Tessa


Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)
Keen, Alan


Dafis, Cynog
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Dalyell, Tam
Khabra, Piara S.


Darling, Alistair
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davidson, Ian
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Leighton, Ron


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Lewis, Terry


Denham, John
Litherland, Robert


Dixon, Don
Livingstone, Ken


Dobson, Frank
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Donohoe, Brian H.
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dowd, Jim
Loyden, Eddie


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McAllion, John


Eagle, Ms Angela
McAvoy, Thomas


Eastham, Ken
McCartney, Ian


Enright, Derek
Macdonald, Calum


Etherington, Bill
McFall, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McKelvey, William


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fatchett, Derek
McLeish, Henry


Faulds, Andrew
Maclennan, Robert


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McNamara, Kevin


Fisher, Mark
Madden, Max


Flynn, Paul
Mahon, Alice


Foster, Derek (B' p Auckland)
Mandelson, Peter


Foster, Don (Bath)
Marek, Dr John


Foulkes, George
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fraser, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Gapes, Mike
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Garrett, John
Martlew, Eric


George, Bruce
Meacher, Michael


Gerrard, Neil
Meale, Alan


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Michael, Alun


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Godsiff, Roger
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Milburn, Alan


Gordon, Mildred
Miller, Andrew


Gould, Bryan
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Graham, Thomas
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morgan, Rhodri


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morley, Elliot


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Gunnell, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hain, Peter
Mudie, George


Hall, Mike
Mullin, Chris


Hanson, David
Murphy, Paul


Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Harman, Ms Harriet
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Harvey, Nick
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Hara, Edward


Henderson, Doug
Olner, William


Heppell, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Parry, Robert


Hinchliffe, David
Patchett, Terry


Hoey, Kate
Pendry, Tom


Home Robertson, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hood, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L.





Pope, Greg
Spearing, Nigel


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Steinberg, Gerry


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stevenson, George


Prescott, John
Stott, Roger


Primarolo, Dawn
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Quin, Ms Joyce
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Radice, Giles
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Raynsford, Nick
Tipping, Paddy


Redmond, Martin
Turner, Dennis


Reid, Dr John
Tyler, Paul


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Vaz, Keith


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'fry NW)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Walley, Joan


Rogers, Allan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rooker, Jeff
Watson, Mike


Rooney, Terry
Welsh, Andrew


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wicks, Malcolm


Ruddock, Joan
Wigley, Dafydd


Salmond, Alex
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Sheerman, Barry
Wilson, Brian


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Winnick, David


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wise, Audrey


Simpson, Alan
Wray, Jimmy


Skinner, Dennis
Wright, Dr Tony


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)



Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mr. John Spellar and


Snape, Peter
Mr. Gordon McMaster.


Soley, Clive





NOES


Adley, Robert
Carttiss, Michael


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Cash, William


Alexander, Richard
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Chaplin, Mrs Judith


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Chapman, Sydney


Amess, David
Churchill, Mr


Ancram, Michael
Clappison, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Ashby, David
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Aspinwall, Jack
Coe, Sebastian


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Colvin, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Congdon, David


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Conway, Derek


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Baldry, Tony
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Couchman, James


Bates, Michael
Cran, James


Batiste, Spencer
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bellingham, Henry
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Day, Stephen


Booth, Hartley
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Boswell, Tim
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dicks, Terry


Bowden, Andrew
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowis, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dover, Den


Brandreth, Gyles
Duncan, Alan


Brazier, Julian
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bright, Graham
Dunn, Bob


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Dykes, Hugh


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Eggar, Tim


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Elletson, Harold


Burns, Simon
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Burt, Alistair
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Butcher, John
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Butler, Peter
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Butterfill, John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Evennett, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Faber, David


Carrington, Matthew
Fabricant, Michael






Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lightbown, David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fishburn, Dudley
Lord, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Luff, Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forth, Eric
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
MacKay, Andrew


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Maclean, David


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Freeman, Roger
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


French, Douglas
Madel, David


Fry, Peter
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gale, Roger
Malone, Gerald


Gallie, Phil
Mans, Keith


Gardiner, Sir George
Marland, Paul


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Marlow, Tony


Garnier, Edward
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gill, Christopher
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gillan, Cheryl
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Merchant, Piers


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Milligan, Stephen


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mills, Iain


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Moate, Sir Roger


Hague, William
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hanley, Jeremy
Moss, Malcolm


Hannam, Sir John
Needham, Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nelson, Anthony


Hawkins, Nick
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawksley, Warren
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholls, Patrick


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Norris, Steve


Hendry, Charles
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hicks, Robert
Ottaway, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Page, Richard


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Paice, James


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Patnick, Irvine


Horam, John
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Pickles, Eric


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rathbone, Tim


Jenkin, Bernard
Redwood, John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Richards, Rod


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Riddick, Graham


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Robathan, Andrew


Key, Robert
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Kilfedder, Sir James
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Knapman, Roger
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sackville, Tom


Knox, David
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Legg, Barry
Shersby, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Sims, Roger


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lidington, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)





Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Trotter, Neville


Speed, Sir Keith
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spencer, Sir Derek
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Viggers, Peter


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Spink, Dr Robert
Walden, George


Spring, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Sproat, Iain
Waller, Gary


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Ward, John


Steen, Anthony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stephen, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Stern, Michael
Watts, John


Stewart, Allan
Wells, Bowen


Streeter, Gary
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Sumberg, David
Whitney, Ray


Sweeney, Walter
Whittingdale, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Willetts, David


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Wilshire, David


Temple-Morris, Peter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wood, Timothy


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Thurnham, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Townend, John (Bridlington)



Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Tellers for the Noes:


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Tredinnick, David
Mr. James Arbuthnot.


Trend, Michael

Division No. 149]
 [7.20 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Burns, Simon


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Burt, Alistair


Aitken, Jonathan
Butcher, John


Alexander, Richard
Butler, Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Butterfill, John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Amess, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Ancram, Michael
Carrington, Matthew


Arbuthnot, James
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cash, William


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Ashby, David
Chaplin, Mrs Judith


Aspinwall, Jack
Churchill, Mr


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Clappison, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Coe, Sebastian


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Colvin, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Congdon, David


Bates, Michael
Conway, Derek


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Couchman, James


Booth, Hartley
Cran, James


Boswell, Tim
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bowden, Andrew
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bowis, John
Day, Stephen


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Brandreth, Gyles
Devlin, Tim


Brazier, Julian
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bright, Graham
Dicks, Terry


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dorrell, Stephen


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Dover, Den


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Duncan, Alan






Duncan-Smith, Iain
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knox, David


Dykes, Hugh
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Eggar, Tim
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Elletson, Harold
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Legg, Barry


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evennett, David
Lidington, David


Faber, David
Lightbown, David


Fabricant, Michael
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lord, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Luff, Peter


Fishburn, Dudley
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Forman, Nigel
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacKay, Andrew


Forth, Eric
Maclean, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Madel, David


Freeman, Roger
Maitland, Lady Olga


French, Douglas
Malone, Gerald


Fry, Peter
Mans, Keith


Gale, Roger
Marlow, Tony


Gallie, Phil
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Garnier, Edward
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Gillan, Cheryl
Merchant, Piers


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Milligan, Stephen


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mills, Iain


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moate, Sir Roger


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Monro, Sir Hector


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Grylls, Sir Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Hague, William
Needham, Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholls, Patrick


Hannam, Sir John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hawkins, Nick
Norris, Steve


Hawksley, Warren
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayes, Jerry
Ottaway, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Page, Richard


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Paice, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patnick, Irvine


Hendry, Charles
Patten, Rt Hon John


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hicks, Robert
Pawsey, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Pickles, Eric


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Horam, John
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Redwood, John


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Richards, Rod


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robathan, Andrew


Jenkin, Bernard
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Key, Robert
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kilfedder, Sir James
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sackville, Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knapman, Roger
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas





Shaw, David (Dover)
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tracey, Richard


Shersby, Michael
Trend, Michael


Sims, Roger
Trotter, Neville


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Viggers, Peter


Speed, Sir Keith
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Spencer, Sir Derek
Walden, George


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waller, Gary


Spink, Dr Robert
Ward, John


Spring, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sproat, Iain
Waterson, Nigel


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Watts, John


Steen, Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Stephen, Michael
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Stern, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Allan
Whittingdale, John


Streeter, Gary
Widdecombe, Ann


Sumberg, David
Willetts, David


Sweeney, Walter
Wilshire, David


Sykes, John
Wolfson, Mark


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. Robert G. Hughes


Thornton, Sir Malcolm





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Adams, Mrs Irene
Coffey, Ann


Ainger, Nick
Cohen, Harry


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Connarty, Michael


Allen, Graham
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Corbett, Robin


Armstrong, Hilary
Corbyn, Jeremy


Austin-Walker, John
Corston, Ms Jean


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cousins, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Cox, Tom


Barron, Kevin
Cryer, Bob


Battle, John
Cummings, John


Bayley, Hugh
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beckett, Margaret
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Dafis, Cynog


Bell, Stuart
Dalyell, Tam


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Darling, Alistair


Bennett, Andrew F.
Davidson, Ian


Benton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Betts, Clive
Denham, John


Blair, Tony
Dewar, Donald


Blunkett, David
Dixon, Don


Boyce, Jimmy
Dobson, Frank


Boyes, Roland
Donohoe, Brian H.


Bradley, Keith
Dowd, Jim


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Eastham, Ken


Burden, Richard
Enright, Derek


Byers, Stephen
Etherington, Bill


Caborn, Richard
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Cann, Jamie
Fisher, Mark


Chisholm, Malcolm
Flynn, Paul


Clapham, Michael
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Foulkes, George


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Fraser, John


Clelland, David
Galloway, George






Gapes, Mike
Jowell, Tessa


Garrett, John
Keen, Alan


George, Bruce
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Gerrard, Neil
Khabra, Piara S.


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Kilfoyle, Peter


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Kirkwood, Archy


Godsiff, Roger
Leighton, Ron


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Gordon, Mildred
Lewis, Terry


Gould, Bryan
Litherland, Robert


Graham, Thomas
Livingstone, Ken


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Loyden, Eddie


Grocott, Bruce
Lynne, Ms Liz


Gunnell, John
McAllion, John


Hain, Peter
McAvoy, Thomas


Hall, Mike
McCartney, Ian


Hanson, David
Macdonald, Calum


Hardy, Peter
McFall, John


Harman, Ms Harriet
McKelvey, William


Harvey, Nick
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
McLeish, Henry


Henderson, Doug
Maclennan, Robert


Heppell, John
McMaster, Gordon


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
McNamara, Kevin


Hinchliffe, David
Madden, Max


Hoey, Kate
Mahon, Alice


Hood, Jimmy
Mandelson, Peter


Hoon, Geoffrey
Marek, Dr John


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Hoyle, Doug
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Martlew, Eric


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Meacher, Michael


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Michael, Alun


Hughes, Simon (Southward)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Hutton, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Illsley, Eric
Milburn, Alan


Ingram, Adam
Miller, Andrew


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Jamieson, David
Morgan, Rhodri


Johnston, Sir Russell
Morley, Elliot


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Mowlam, Marjorie





Mudie, George
Skinner, Dennis


Mullin, Chris
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Murphy, Paul
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Snape, Peter


O'Hara, Edward
Soley, Clive


Olner, William
Spearing, Nigel


O'Neill, Martin
Spellar, John


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Parry, Robert
Steinberg, Gerry


Patchett, Terry
Stevenson, George


Pendry, Tom
Stott, Roger


Pickthall, Colin
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Pike, Peter L.
Straw, Jack


Pope, Greg
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Tipping, Paddy


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Turner, Dennis


Prescott, John
Tyler, Paul


Primarolo, Dawn
Vaz, Keith


Purchase, Ken
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Quin, Ms Joyce
Walley, Joan


Radice, Giles
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Raynsford, Nick
Watson, Mike


Redmond, Martin
Welsh, Andrew


Reid, Dr John
Wicks, Malcolm


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Wigley, Dafydd


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Rogers, Allan
Wilson, Brian


Rooker, Jeff
Winnick, David


Rooney, Terry
Wise, Audrey


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Worthington, Tony


Ruddock, Joan
Wray, Jimmy


Salmond, Alex
Wright, Dr Tony


Sedgemore, Brian
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sheerman, Barry



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tellers for the Noes:


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Alan Meale and


Simpson, Alan
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Social Security

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motions:
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.
That the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.

Mr. Lilley: The orders implement the decisions that I announced following the autumn statement at the end of the public expenditure round. I shall discuss how they affect different groups of beneficiaries, but it is just possible that the House will wish me to expand a little upon the implications for social security of the long-term review announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on Monday. With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall do so after dealing with the orders themselves.
I am pretty certain that the long-term review will have two things in common with the public spending round: it will be accompanied by sustained, reckless and unfounded scaremongering by the Opposition, and the outcome will show that scaremongering to be wholly baseless. In October, for example, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) put out a statement saying that the Government were planning to cut benefits for
the poorest, weakest and frailest who have been targeted to pay the price of the Government's policy".
We are used to hearing that sort of thing from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East—but he was joined by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). who should know better. The hon. Member for Garscadden accused the Government of planning a campaign of "social vandalism", "singling out those on benefits", breaking our pledges and so on.
Needless to say, both hon. Gentlemen were wrong. In fact we kept our pledges to families and to the elderly, maintained support for people hit by recession and focused additional support on the most needy. Today we are implementing those decisions.

Mr. David Winnick: The Secretary of State is keen to accuse the Opposition of scaremongering, but is he not aware that on Sunday almost every newspaper—including those that usually support the Government—stated, presumably as a result of leaks, that the Government intended to means-test the state pension? It was not suggested that that would happen during this Parliament, but that was supposed to be the long-term

objective. Will the Secretary of State now give a guarantee that in no circumstances and at no stage, in the short or the long term, will the state pension be means-tested?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman has a dispute with his own Front-Bench spokesmen. It is the Leader of the Opposition who has set up a review to consider means-testing all universal benefits.

Mr. Winnick: Answer my question, yes or no.

Mr. Lilley: In the section of my speech dealing with the long-term review, I shall deal with the precise point that the hon. Gentleman raises.
We are fulfilling our manifesto pledges to uprate pensions and child benefit in line with inflation. We are uprating all other major benefits fully in line with inflation and are confirming decisions to channel £1 billion extra to those on income-related benefits. In a tough spending round, it was possible to find the resources to maintain and improve benefits only by the most rigorous scrutiny of costs.
Above all, it was essential to staunch the flow of money to those whom Parliament did not intend to receive it. In the autumn, I set a target of £500 million for fraud identified and stopped by the Benefits Agency alone. I am delighted to say that we are well set to exceed that this year.

Mr. Donald Dewar: The form of words that the Secretary of State used might have given someone listening less than carefully the impression that the right hon. Gentleman would have liked to do better, but that, of course, he did well in the stringent financial conditions. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the Government's position? Is it not true that, as a matter of policy, they would not want the basic pension, for example, ever to rise in real terms?

Mr. Lilley: It is a fact that the Labour party is committed to linking pensions to earnings. We are committed to linking the basic pension to prices. That is clear—and it has important implications. It means, for example, that, as I have said, we can channel additional resources to those in greatest need. The Labour party would not he able to do that. That is why a Labour Government would be compelled to means-test the pension if they were uprating it in line with earnings and wished to channel any resources away from the better-off to the most needy. That is a dispute that the hon. Member for Garscadden must have with his Back Benchers.
I am delighted to say not only that we are set to exceed our target for Benefits Agency fraud for this year, but that for next year I shall set the agency and local councils a combined target, covering all benefits, of nearly £1 billion worth of fraud identified and stopped. If we abandoned the battle against fraud, as Opposition Members often urge, we should not have that £1 billion—and without that I could not have increased benefits for those on income support.
The hon. Member for Garscadden may tell Selina Scott, as he did the other night:
we are united on the need to tackle fraud".
Who would not tell Miss Scott what she wanted to hear? But the fact is that the Opposition have opposed and derided every step that we have taken to bear down on fraud. They opposed our measures to curb the payment of benefits to people not actively seeking work, be they new


age travellers or others. They opposed our measures to prevent bogus asylum-seekers from ripping off the system with multiple applications. They ridiculed the target that I set at Brighton, which we are now set to exceed. That is why the public are convinced that Labour is the friend of the freeloader. It is not I who said that, but the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett).

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, in his characteristically courteous manner. How will the uprating scheme benefit women in receipt of invalidity benefit? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a few days ago the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice issued an opinion to his colleagues that the British Government had discriminated against women by cutting off invalidity benefit at the age of 60, which was in contravention of an equality directive passed, I believe, as long ago as 1979? When does the Secretary of State expect the European Court of Justice to issue a judgment based on the Advocate General's opinion?

Mr. Lilley: We are uprating invalidity benefit, so the hypothetical constituent to whom the hon. Gentleman refers will benefit.
It is the final ruling of the European Court, not the opinion of the Advocate General, which matters. We abide by such rulings, although I am reluctant to consider it sensible to set policy by having it decided by unelected judges rather than by this elected House.

Dr. Godman: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Lilley: I would rather make progress. However, the hon. Gentleman is always so polite that I shall give way.

Dr. Godman: I always try to be polite; the Secretary of State is always polite in his dealings with me.
The Secretary of State made an important observation. He said that it is not the Advocate General's opinion but the ruling of the 13 judges which is important. He also said that he always abides by such judgments. If the judges rule against the Government, will the 470-odd constituents to whom I referred receive not only the invalidity benefit, but the back payment of that benefit?

Mr. Lilley: I do not want to give a hypothetical response to a hypothetical ruling of the court which we have not yet seen. The hon. Gentleman may come back to me at a future date on the issue.
The main feature of the debate is the uprating of all the main benefits in full. People said that we would not or could not do it. When I announced last November that we were doing so, the hon. Member for Garscadden promptly started looking for shortcomings in the basis of the uprating. He alleged that by indexing on the basis of price rises over the previous 12 months, I was
leaving pensioners' living standards vulnerable to rising inflation in the coming year"—[Official Report, 12 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 1018.]
The hon. Member for Garscadden was wrong again. Far from rising, inflation has been falling. The retail prices index showed a 3.6 per cent. rise in the 12 months to September and that is the amount by which all benefits will be uprated. The RPI now shows a rise of just 2.6 per cent. A change to using forecast inflation would probably have disadvantaged everyone on social security.
It was rather unwise for the hon. Member for Garscadden to make that suggestion because it merely

reminds the House that in 1976, Labour changed to the forecasting method. It was a blatant ruse to cut benefits and it resulted in an uprating 6 per cent. less than would have been the case under the method used now. The poor were truly vulnerable under Labour because inflation reached 27 per cent.— 10 times the current rate—slashing the value of benefits between upratings and wiping out savings.
In his response to the uprating statement, the hon. Member for Garscadden suggested that an index excluding housing costs would be better for pensioners. The pensioners' prices index excludes most housing costs, but if that index had been used since 1979 instead of the RPI, the pension would now be worth £6.65 a week less than the current rate. We are not in the business of playing around with indices. Our way is straightforward: to attack inflation and to protect honestly the real spending power of benefits.
It may be helpful if I now explain how the benefit uprating helps different groups of people: the elderly, families, the unemployed, the sick and disabled, carers and those in residential care. The Government have shown that we honour our pledges. Our pensions policy has three main strands. The first is to maintain the real value of the basic retirement pension, so we are increasing the basic pension next April from £54.15 to £5610 for a single person and by £3.10 a week to £89.90 for a couple.
The second strand is to focus extra help on those who most need it, so we have raised the pensioners' premium in income support by £2 for a single person and by £3 a week for a couple. Together with the ending of any requirement to pay any council tax, that channels £500 million extra to the neediest pensioners.
The third strand is to encourage people to make additional pension provision in line with their earnings. The Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1992 protects members of occupational pension schemes by uprating guaranteed minimum pensions by 3 per cent.
The success of our policies to encourage more choice in pensions can be seen by the number of people who have chosen to contract out of the state system. Since the pension reforms of the 1980s, 5 million people have become personal pension holders. Some 500,000 additional people have joined occupational schemes and the number of schemes has increased by 31,000.
Once again, for families we have honoured our manifesto pledge by fully uprating child benefit. It will rise to £10 a week for the first child and to £8.10 for other children in the family. Family credit has been uprated in full. It now goes to more people with family responsibilities than ever before. Some 450,000 families are being helped to maintain themselves in work by an average payment of £42 a week. Almost 300,000 will gain from improved arrangements for non-dependent reductions in housing benefit and in income support housing costs. The three lower rates of non-dependent deductions will remain the same. Those with higher incomes will be expected to contribute £21 a week, which is not an unreasonable amount, as it represents less than one sixth of their income.
I have been especially mindful of those hit by the recession in my scrutiny of benefit levels, so I have uprated unemployment benefit fully in line with prices. The Chancellor does not include expenditure on benefits for the unemployed within the overall control total for public


spending. It is right morally and economically to accommodate the extra help for the unemployed during the recession.
We are spending £2 billion on programmes for the unemployed, including youth training. That is two and a half times as much as was spent on training under the previous Labour Government.
The House has already heard that I propose to uprate invalidity benefits fully in line with inflation for people unable to work because of sickness.

Dr. Godman: In the west of Scotland, a number of men are in receipt of invalidity benefit because they are suffering from asbestosis or from related ailments. In pursuit of their legitimate claims against their employers for placing them in such dangerous circumstances, they had to submit themselves to an independent medical by a specialist. They had to pay for that examination. I appeal to the Secretary of State to examine most sympathetically the problem that the men face in having to find the money. It is an added burden for those men and I should be extremely grateful to the Secretary of State if he would find a way in which to remove that burden from these men, all of whom are terminally ill.

Mr. Lilley: I shall look at the hon. Gentleman's point. I suspect from the way in which he puts it that he is referring to industrial injuries benefit rather than to invalidity benefit. Either way, I shall look into the matter and contact him afterwards.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I have argued for a while that people who are following a course of study with the intention of making themselves more employable or people who have chosen for a while to leave the labour market to do worthwhile voluntary work should be able to negotiate with their social security or unemployment benefit office the opportunity to withdraw voluntarily from the labour market while they are engaged in socially worthwhile activities. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will take that suggestion seriously into consideration in these hard times.

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend has mentioned the point to me behind the Speaker's Chair. We shall consider it seriously.
On benefits for the sick and for the disabled, I intend to increase fully in line with inflation sickness benefit for short-term sickness and the lower rate of statutory sick pay, but I do not propose to increase the higher rate which goes to employees earning £195 or more a week. Most employees who qualify for the higher rate have their statutory sick pay topped up by occupational sick pay schemes. It would therefore be an inappropriate use of taxpayers' resources to increase that rate.
For people with disabilities, we shall in particular continue the support provided by the two new benefits introduced last year—disability working allowance and disability living allowance. This will be the first uprating of the new benefits. Since the introduction of disability living allowance in April last year, 370,000 awards have been made, including more than 200,000 to less severely disabled people who have gained from the new benefit. That increases to nearly 2 million the number of people receiving help with the extra costs of disability.
I also plan to increase the amount that carers may earn before their benefit entitlement is affected. Those carers entitled to the carer premium in income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit who currently qualify for a lower earnings disregard will be able to earn up to £15 a week without losing any of their income-related benefit.
Most of the income support limits for those in residential and nursing homes will be increased by £10 a week—that is more than inflation in most cases. I have also decided to increase the grant to hospices. I shall be making an extra grant of £1 million in 1993–94, and that is in addition to the £1 million for each of the public expenditure survey years announced in 1991.
I promised that I would address the issue of the long-term review of spending announced on Monday by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. In the annual public expenditure round, the focus is essentially short term. We review spending plans for the next year and two subsequent years, yet in the Department of Social Security in particular, most of our spending—who gets it and how much—is laid down in statute. Because of the time that it takes to legislate, implement and protect existing beneficiaries, the main impact of any change is likely to fall beyond the PES period. Consequently, the annual public expenditure round provides insufficient incentive to get to grips with longer-term trends. The social security budget is rather like a giant super-tanker: it takes some time to respond to the movement of the rudder. That is why it is sensible and essential from time to time to undertake a long-term review as we are doing at present.
Let me make one thing crystal clear. We have no intention of reneging on our manifesto pledges. Our manifesto was quite explicit. We believe that the basic pension must remain the foundation for retirement and we will protect its value against price rises. We are likewise committed to child benefit, which will continue to be paid to all families—normally to the mother—and uprated in line with prices.
By contrast, the Opposition are jettisoning—like cargo from a sinking ship—the pledges that they offered the electorate. Every time the hon. Member for Garscadden appears on television, he abandons a pledge—a pledge before breakfast, a pledge before lunch and a pledge before dinner, if I may coin a phrase.
The aim of our review is not just to control expenditure. It is to ensure that spending is geared to the needs of the 1990s and the 21st century and not to the patterns of the past. We intend to improve as well as save. So let us be quite clear: excessive expenditure on social security can be doubly damaging because when the state takes too much money from one person to give to another, it reduces the first person's incentive to work and undermines the second person's incentive to support himself. It is a double whammy of disincentive and dependency.
Let us face it:
one of the tragedies of the present system is that it does encourage dependency. I only have to look around my constituency to see people who have become dependent, not because they want to but because of the way the system operates—because of the poverty trap. Can we break out of that? I am certainly not afraid to say that there are duites as well as rights for those on benefit.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Before the Secretary of State continues with this rather familiar passage from his conference speech, let me ask him this: does he recognise that the reason why so many people


depend on social security benefit is that they are unemployed through no fault of their own and that the public expenditure problem that the Government face arises largely because of the amount of benefit paid to the unemployed and the loss of tax revenue from those same people?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman may find the phrases that I have just uttered familiar. I may say that they were not from my conference speech but were the words used by the hon. Member for Garscadden to describe the dependency syndrome that he sees in his constituency. So we all agree that there is an irresistible case for a thorough long-term review of social security. The Government are quite clear as to the principles that should animate that review. I have spelt them out to the House before but I repeat that the keys are to focus improvements in benefits on those in greatest need and to harness private provision wherever possible.

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time.
He referred to the state pensions, and we understand the position regarding this Parliament. So that those in their 40s and 50s, whether in employment or out of employment, may know the situation, will he now state it unambiguously? Is he telling the House and the country that, as far as the Government are concerned—leaving aside anything that may or may not have been said by the Opposition—the state pension itself will remain without any form of means testing whatever?

Mr. Lilley: We have made it absolutely clear what our pledges are and that we have no plans to means-test. I cannot tell what would happen in a future Parliament if the Labour party were ever elected. It seems to be working out plans for precisely that—but, fortunately, it does not seem to be very good at winning elections.
We have made it clear what our principle are. We want to give people wider choice, stronger incentives and more control over their own money. The Opposition reject that route, because they know what they are against but they have not a clue what they are for. That is why the Leader of the Labour party set up a commission—a total cop-out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has always opposed the practice of putting Government services out to contract but now he is contracting out the Opposition's entire policy. It is the first time in history that a party has had to ask outsiders what its principles are.
In his much-heralded speech on Sunday, the Leader of the Opposition did not mention social security once so we should not expect too much from Labour's commission on social justice. I have been looking at the list of the people whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman has placed on the commission. There are two conspicuous absences,, the first of which is the Labour spokesman on social security, the hon. Member for Garscadden, who, as a result, is left floundering in interviews, unable to state what his policies are and unable to influence what they will be. Even more remarkable is the absence of the Chairman of the Select Committe, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), whom I welcome to our proceedings. The hon. Gentleman is living proof that it is possible to be a member of the Labour party and a creative thinker, but he is also proof that it is not worth the risk—one will not be put on a commission, one will not be put on the Front Bench and one will be excluded from its counsels.

Mr. Frank Field: The Secretary of State has stated that, in this Parliament, the review will not touch the two benefits in respect of which the biggest savings could be made if it were decided to make a change in the overall level of social security expenditure. He will therefore be dealing with more minor benefits, which are nevertheless important to those claimants who may be affected. The right hon. Gentleman said that we all know the principles by which the Government operate. Will he undertake that, as far as possible, the review will be undertaken in public and that, as happened with the Fowler review, the background papers will be published so that affected claimants and their representatives at least know what is going on and can perhaps influence the Government's decisions in advance of their conclusions?

Mr. Lilley: The review is likely to be rather wider in scope initially so I do not think that we shall adopt that approach, although we shall of course be responsive to any suggestions that come from the Select Committee, from hon. Members or from people outside the House.

Mr. Frank Field: But unless we know what the Secretary of State is planning, it will be terribly difficult for outsiders to contribute.

Mr. Lilley: We are planning a long-term review. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said, we hope to be able to feed back some of our findings to inform the short-term public expenditure round, but the rest will take longer. The review is likely to inform the whole process of the transformation of the social security system as time goes by rather than being a one-off decision.
Let me return to the subject of the commission on social justice, on which the hon. Member for Birkenhead sadly does not sit, and consider who does serve on it. Apart from the statutory business man, it consists of one BBC producer, one professional trade unionist, one economist, one charity director—[Interruption.] I seem to have a fan who reads all my speeches in advance. The list also includes a charity director, a chair, a baby expert, who I take it is the high chair, a provost, Neil Kinnock's press secretary and seven professors. I suspect that their idea of poverty is a shortage of port at high table.
Characteristically, the leader of the Labour party has set them off in the wrong direction. At the last general election, he tried to persuade the electorate to accept higher national insurance. Now he is considering cutting the benefits of those who contribute most. Of course, he is opposed to private provision. Can there be a more irrational combination: take the lid off contributions, means-test benefits and discourage private provision? That is the Labour party's recipe. I am glad that it is learning it by heart. I hope that it will soon get its lessons right.
The orders which we are debating today demonstrate the Government's commitment to the needy. They prove that we keep our pledges, and they demolish the Labour party's scaremongering. The same will be true of our long-term review. I commend the orders to the House.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I recognise that it is important to get a high return on capital. The Secretary of State must recognise that there are not many young Conservatives in the House at present, and the


speech which was suitable for a gathering of Young Conservatives, and the humour that went with it, is not necessarily suitable for this debate.
I understand and accept that the Secretary of State takes great pride in the uprating which he has announced and which we are legislating for today. It is almost as though he surprised himself—and perhaps he did. If he surprised himself, that would explain the black propaganda that he and his team spread before the announcement.
I have had exchanges with the Secretary of State on the point before, and I do not intend to go over the evidence. There was plentiful evidence in the press and quotations and reports of what the Secretary of State had been saying to groups of his own Back Benchers about the tough nature of the poublic expenditure round and its impact on social security. Of course, it did not come to pass. I am at least grateful for that, and I made that clear, undoubtedly to his disappointment, from the beginning of the statement.
It has not stopped the Secretary of State from polishing a passage which has appeared, to my knowledge, in at least three speeches about the disappointment which ran across the Labour Benches when the 3.6 per cent. was announced. The passage is somewhat tired and predictable. We are almost invited by the Secretary of State to imagine that singlehandedly and bravely, as a sort of Horatius figure, he thwarted the Treasury's wish to do wicked things to social security. That is not a likely story, and the relief which greeted the 3.6 per cent. figure perhaps tells him a fair degree about his reputation and record.
The Secretary of State is in the habit of gloating. He got that reputation during his address to the Young Conservatives, small bits of which have been recycled today. I did not admire the speech, so I especially deplore its reappearance, even in a greatly truncated form. Quite a little theme is being developed. For example, at the beginning we had a rather risqué joke about the sexual mores of Young Conservatives which I thought was quite courageous and perhaps a matter for interested speculation.
We got another Gilbert and Sullivan pastiche, as we always do. We also got another mark of the right hon. Gentleman. I say in passing that we got some rather unpleasant personal jibes about some of my colleagues, although I escaped on this occasion.
What was interesting, and what I especially enjoyed in the speech, was the ringing defence of the Government's European stance. It was especially satisfying to hear that sounding out loud and clear. If that is the sort of support which the Prime Minister gets at the Cabinet table, I am not surprised that he looks distinctly nervous on occasions.
I shall make my final reference to the speech, and it is perhaps a more serious point. The Secretary of State does not do himself much good when he misrepresents the position and opinions of others in the political spectrum. For example, the suggestion which was implied—it was qualified only in a minor way—that the Labour party hates families and wishes to make fathers redundant and mothers dependent is an unpleasant distortion of our position.

Mr. Lilley: I certainly did not say that about the Labour party; I said the left. Indeed, I would commend to the hon. Gentleman an interesting pamphlet published by the Institute of Economic Affairs by two Labour party members about families without fathers. I should think that it would be of great interest to the whole House and would have a broad measure of interest but not necessarily total agreement. It is not an issue on which the Labour party is to be condemned, only the left.

Mr. Dewar: That is what I meant about qualifications that amount almost to sophistry. In the context of the speech and the way in which it developed, there is undoubtedly the impression that the Secretary of State intended to give in his remarks. I will not pursue the matter, but he should be more careful in the future. Occasionally, he takes certain pleasure in misrepresenting the position. There is enough genuinely between us without that sort of distortion.
I accept that the 3.6 per cent. covers the inflation figure for the 12 months to September. No one has quarrelled with that. We have made it clear that it is welcome, so far as it goes. We are entitled to say that it is a standstill award: it represents no progress and solves no problems. There are still a lot of queries, questions, difficulties and disasters in the social security world and none of them is tackled by this measure or the figure.
I do not think that the House would want me to go through the difficulties in great detail. The Secretary of State will recognise that there is still great concern, for example, about the disability living allowance in terms of the administrative process. I have been told that we have reached a steady state, but the mailbags of my colleagues deny that daily. There is still an enormous number of people who have been waiting an inordinate time for results.
The Secretary of State will be aware of the distress about the developments in the independent living fund and the sudden decision to close that fund on 25 November. I mention that in conjunction with the disability living allowance because, as Ministers will know, many people wanted to apply for the independent living fund. To qualify, they would have had to get a disability living allowance. They put in an application early in the year, perhaps in March or April, and by the time the gate came down on 25 November they still had not received a response to their application from the DLA.
It is doubly chawing for people to get the news that their applications have been successful and qualified for the independent living fund only to discover that they cannot apply because of the ruling that the door shut on 25 November. It will be interesting to see the Government's response to that problem.
Difficulties still attend the social fund. We have had a great deal of talk from Ministers about the need to work on the basis of loans to maintain the flow of cash for the social fund. The Labour party's point of attack is the real difficulties which arise from the cash limiting which can be arbitrary and affect the chances of success, to some extent at least conditioned by the area in which people live and the point in the financial year in which they apply.
There are many difficulties and troubles. Although the Secretary of State is entitled to take what credit he can from the settlement, modest though it is, he must recognise


that the worries still exist and are very much part of the daily life of those who must live with the system and, to some extent, rely on it.
The 3.6 per cent. will not cure those problems. I have no doubt that many hon. Members are uncomfortably aware, from constituency experience, of the fact that there are people on income support at present. No one thinks that income support is a generous provision to cover the cost of living. In fact, many people receive less than the income support entitlement because of the enormous number of deductions which are being made from income support levels.
The figures I saw—undoubtedly the Secretary of State will be familiar with them—show that, in England, about 495,000 recipients of income support are repaying social fund loans. Another 262,000 are paying poll tax arrears. No doubt a distinction can be drawn between those making social fund repayments and those paying poll tax arrears and one could say that it was the fault of the second group that they had less money because they should have paid the poll tax. But the fact remains that families are struggling on a level that none of us comtemplated or expected.
I gather that in Scotland—I am being unashamedly parochial in using that statistical base—20 per cent. of recipients of income support are subject to deductions for social fund repayments. That is a staggering figure, to which soon will be added those subject to the new arrangements, for example. for deducting £2.20 for child maintenance under the child support unit. So there are major problems which the House should not forget when we consider the narrower point of the uprating.
The Secretary of State quoted me—I do not know whether it was a compliment or an attack—on the subject of dependency. I am not ashamed of what I said. Of course I believe that some people have become dependent. The Secretary of State was right to mention the caveat that I included—that it was the fault of the system. People are dependent because of the position in which they find themselves. It is not a matter for moral judgment or the assumption of some moral failing.
If the Secretary of State and I agree that there is a problem of dependency, I must remind him that his Government have been in power for almost 15 years.
I should have thought that by now they would have had time to turn the tanker or at least marginally to adjust its course to deal with that problem. I will not apologise for recognising that a problem exists—it would be a mistake to brush it under the carpet—but the Secretary of State should recognise that what we do about the problem is the matter for discussion and debate.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for saying a word or two about the long-term review. I accept that it is perhaps difficult for him to give us a great deal of detail about the end product, but I hoped that he would go a little further than he did. For several reasons, I wish to press him on the matter. I make the preliminary point that there is a distinction between a long-term review—obviously, changes in benefits will have a phasing-in period and will be some way ahead—and the short-term financial problems of the Government. However, the two are to some extent interconnected.
There was a touch of panic about what was announced the other day. It is some evidence, for which perhaps we should be grateful, that Ministers are beginning to face up to the economic failure for which they are responsible.
I shudder to think of the abuse that would have fallen on the heads of a Labour Government if they had run a public sector borrowing requirement of £45 billion, moving happily ahead to some £50 billion in the next year or 18 months. We would have been told that it was the height of fiscal irresponsibility and an example of the insanity of having a Labour Government.
I suspect that the realisation that in the coming financial year the Government will borrow £1,000 for every man, woman and child in Britain and will borrow about £1 billion per week to fund the shortfall in their income has triggered at least some of the Government's activity, which is being described as a long-term policy review. The Government are in an awful mess and there is no disguising that fact.
We gather—I should like to press the Secretary of State on this—that the Government's activity is not a search for immediate savings. It is not just a matter of finding a few million here and there. In the Chief Secretary's statement and the briefings that have been given to the press, he implied that the review would be a fundamental change in structure. That makes it a serious matter. One of the press reports, allegedly based on a Treasury briefing, said that the review would not be a cheeseparing exercise but would be fundamental in its impact.
We were told specifically by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that on the agenda is a search for areas of provision from which the Government can withdraw altogether. That is an interesting phrase. It must mean something. It must have been put in with specific thought because it appears in the introductory statement made to the House. When the Minister replies, we should be given some idea which areas are being considered. We do not want hard decisions but we want to know roughly frorn which areas the Government may seek to withdraw.

Mr. David Willetts: If the hon. Gentleman presses Ministers on that point, will he say what the Leader of the Opposition was referring to in a recent interview in The Times when he said that the social justice commission would be free to propose all sorts of "subtractions" from social security benefits? Surely, if the hon. Gentleman expects the Government to explain what they mean by withdrawal, he should explain what the Labour party means by subtraction.

Mr. Dewar: I was challenging the Government to say a word or two. I do not think that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) speaks for the Government.—

Thr Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Yet.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman should be pleased that people are already speaking for him. His cause is being advanced with all the persuasive powers for which the Under-Secretary is famous. I am not sure whether that bodes ill or well for his career, but I will leave him to make up his mind about that.
If the hon. Gentleman aspires to the Front Bench—I suspect that he is a man not without ambition—some of the pamphlets that he has written recently will make doubly interesting reading on the day that I hear of his appointment. But at the moment I am asking the questions. We have given a fair amount of information about the areas that we would examine. That is why the


Secretary of State's attacks were unfair and inaccurate. We have not been totally silent. Let us hear something similar from the Minister.
I repeat that the phrase "areas of provision from which Government can withdraw altogether" will hang in the air. It will be analysed and will be the source of much speculation if the Government do not do something to help the problem of definition. Perhaps I could tempt the Minister by mentioning some of the matters which have been suggested not by Labour politicians but by journalists who say that they have received a hidden briefing from Government sources.
We have been told that unemployment benefit and invalidity benefit will in future be largely a matter of private insurance cover. Those who cannot afford private insurance cover will be left with some sort of safety net provision, but the Government will basically withdraw from unemployment and invalidity benefit. It will be left to the private insurance market and those who can afford the premiums to take steps to cover against misfortune at some later stage.
That is a specific suggestion. If that is all nonsense, if it is wide of the mark, if that is not the type of provision from which the Government intend to withdraw, the Minister will be able to make that clear. That would be of some help, at least in a negative sense, and would perhaps save many people scribing many columns on the basis that that is what is in the Secretary of State's mind.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman has always given way to me in these debates and I am grateful to him for his courtesy on this occasion. Will he tell me the difference, in principle at least, between the position which he asks my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to clarify and the principle set out by the Leader of the Opposition, who said of benefits:
There may be a case for many of them remaining universal, but it's only right we should be prepared to re-examine everything. I have not ruled anything out of court".
What did he mean?

Mr. Dewar: He meant what he said. The hon. Gentleman will be surprised to know that I am grateful to him for raising that point because it allows me to come to the subject of pensions. I intended to read out that passage. My right hon. and learned Friend pledged that the social justice commission would be prepared to look at areas of difficulty and consider what was the right balance between universal and targeted benefits. His following passage made it clear that there were strong arguments for the universal principle, but that has been translated with remarkable ingenuity and a good deal of brass neck into an alleged Labour party mission to means-test everything.
I am struggling to find the right parliamentary language. It seems that the hon. Member is showing a great deal of sophistry in that respect, and he well knows it. There is no way that the words that the hon. Member—from a southern seat which I cannot remember all by myself—quoted can be construed to have the meaning that he seeks to place upon them for partisan but unjustified reasons.
The Secretary of State is being very careful and has said that there will still be a basic pension which will never be means-tested. Exactly what has he got in mind?
I have no doubt that the Secretary of State remembers the report by Andrew Grice on the front page of The Sunday Times, which stated:
Plans under consideration include ending the automatic right to a state pension for people who can afford to make their own private provision for retirement. The state pension would become a safety net for those who could not do so.
That is Mr. Grice's interpretation and he may be quite wrong, but later in the article the following words—allegedly those of the Secretary of State—are printed in direct quotation marks:
We need to look for ways in which the state pension could better targeted and private provision harnessed … We need to focus money on those who are in greatest need and open up greater opportunities for those who can provide for themselves.
It is easy to be misled by words. I do not object to such concepts in the right circumstances, but it is remarkable for the Secretary of State to use such words when he speciously accused us of being interested in means-testing the basic pension, and to say that there is no doubt about his position.

Mr. Lilley: Mr. Grice is a good journalist, but I did not give him an interview or say those words. Obviously, through some Chinese whispers, he got a mangled version. I did not utter those words and, when asked, he acknowledged that, he has no recording of me doing so.

Mr. Dewar: That is extremely interesting. In The Sunday Times it is a direct quote. It states:
he told The Sunday Times.
I understood what the Minister is saying and I do not want to make too much of it as it is a matter for him and Mr. Grice, but I still want to know exactly what is contemplated.
I shall suggest what I think is contemplated. Perhaps there will be a safety net provision—called the basic retirement pension—but people will be invited to contract out of it and will be paid incentives to do so. I do not want to open a major debate and shall be brief, but I must state why that concerns me.
It would be dangerous if the better-off people in society were asked to contract out, not merely into an alternative to the state earnings-related pension scheme, but also out of basic pension provision and cover for illness and unemployment. A vast and important part of the population would be encouraged to see the welfare state as something for other people. Inevitably they would see it as an incubus from which they derived no benefit, and therefore as something unimportant to them. Once we achieve that, we will wreck something that is important and central to our values and our community.

Mr. Winnick: The Secretary of State seems to disagree with the prominent article in The Sunday Times last week and to deny what it says. Why did he not immediately issue a statement? That would have received a great deal of publicity and by Monday the papers could have made clear that the article was inaccurate. The Secretary of State's silence must be a sign that the article was basically correct.

Mr. Dewar: As my hon. Friend will understand, I cannot answer that. However, it is a fair question and the Minister may want to deal with it or to get his colleague to do so later.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). If we took at face value the


Minister's assurances that pensions and other major benefits such as child benefit will not be touched, we would be left with a puzzle. However, the Secretary of State may be thinking of an extension of the contracting-out principle of the sort that I described. Perhaps he will confirm or deny that.
I am not sure that such a system would be a good buy for the Treasury. As we know from the premiums for the private pension system, the Treasury has had to go without a substantial amount of national insurance contributions and has had to pay substantial sums because of the contracting-out payments and incentives over and above those, which have run to billions of pounds during the past five or six years. I suspect that the arithmetic may be a good deal less comfortable than the Secretary of State makes out.
Above all, my objections are social and philosophical. If one relegates the welfare state and the benefits system, which the Secretary of State is in charge of, to a safety net or fall-back provision, successful people who are assured of their position in society will think that the system has nothing to offer them. That would be a mistake and we would not be prepared to contemplate it.
The Secretary of State's attempts to represent himself as generous to pensioners do not hold water. He says that the retirement pension is so important to him, but he has confirmed that it is his policy to freeze it in real terms, which means that it will drop substantially as a percentage of average earnings.

Dr. Godman: I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the changes to certain elements of our welfare system proposed by the Secretary of State may not only constitute a mistake but be capable of being challenged in the European Court of Justice? The Government face certain challenges at the court on Department of Social Security matters. May I remind my hon. Friend that the European Court, in every sense of the word, is becoming an international supreme court for the 13 legal systems contained within the 12 member states.

Mr. Dewar: I agree, but I do not know whether the Secretary of State for Social Security is the best man to appeal to about the European Court of Justice. Judging by what he said in his Young Conservatives speech, I suspect that he is not particularly sympathetic. He may be more worried about the court of public opinion if he goes ahead with the schemes that I suspect that he has in mind.
Many other suggestions are swimming around. For example, the hon. Member for Havant has, among other things, recommended a retirement age of 67 for men and women. Government withdrawal from industrial injury benefits is on the agenda. It seems to me that the contracting-out principle—taking people out of the comprehensive welfare system—is writ large at the back of the Secretary of State's mind. I hope that he will be able to comment on that before we adjourn this evening.
We are obviously not going to vote against the uprating assessment. Although it is a standstill and a legal minimum, we have made it clear that it is welcome, as far as it goes. The Secretary of State mentioned some figures. A single person over 25 will get £44 in income support after housing costs, but someone between the ages of 18 and 24 will get £34.80, although many of their expenses word be the same as if they were over 25. That difference is sometimes difficult to defend. The pension of £56.10 and

even the married person's pension are not generous. I do not believe that the Government could be proud of those figures, and they will be greeted with muted enthusiasm by those people who have to struggle to make ends meet on incomes on which I should not like to live. I suspect that the Secretary of State would not like to live on them either.

Mr. David Willetts: I very much welcome the uprating of all social security benefits by 3.6 per cent. in the orders before us today. Not only are we expecting an uprating of 3.6 per cent., but it comes when inflation has been reduced to 2.6 per cent., so people on benefit will enjoy an increase in the value of their benefits in April above the current rate of inflation. As inflation is low and falling, we can also be confident that the real value of benefits will be maintained during the year. One of the hidden costs of high inflation rates is the damage done to the value of social security benefits, so that by the 11th or 12th month of the year, benefits can be 15 or 20 per cent. lower in real terms than they were at the start of the year. Thank heavens the present low inflation means that that problem, which made it difficult for people on modest incomes to budget carefully, has largely disappeared.
Today's debate also covers the review of social security expenditure announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on Monday. This year's uprating puts some of the scare stories that we have heard into perspective. We have not only an extra £2.5 billion spending on social security due to inflation, but a further £1 billion spending on social security due to the increases in the real value of benefits to the poorest members of our society. There have been increases in the value of income support and extra help has been provided with the new council tax as there is no reduction in income support to take account of the disappearance of the old requirement to contribute to the community charge. That is good news for people on low incomes.
The Labour party is trying to make hay with the review announced by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, but it has its own review under way. It seems odd that the Labour party is allowed to have a review of social security while, according to the Labour party, the Government —who have the responsibility of taking important decisions on the long-term future of social security and do not merely indulge in political speculation—are not allowed to have a review. If the Labour party has a review, it makes it infinitely more important that the Government should have one.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)—who is sadly not in his place at present—is Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, on which I am honoured to serve. Speaking about the review, he urged his Labour colleagues:
if we do not think very radically, we will drift into our fifth election defeat, and we will deserve that."—[Official Report, 30 November 1992; Vol. 215, c. 84.]
The Conservative party should also think radically. Radical thinking has won us four election victories and will be the basis for our fifth.
I shall outline some of the ideas that I hope will be considered in the Government's review. One of the themes must undoubtedly be targeting. It is striking that we have a budget which now runs at more than £70,000 million a year, but which is not so well targeted at helping people on low incomes as it should be. The Government's figures on


households on below average income show that 7 per cent. of recipients of income support live in households with incomes above the national average.
I hope that I may be allowed to refer to a pamphlet entitled, "The Age of Entitlement", published by the Social Market Foundation earlier this week. The author's name temporarily escapes me—[Interruption.] I am being asked to identify the author. The pamphlet happens to have been written by David Willetts, Member of Parliament.
The pamphlet contains figures from a parliamentary answer on pensioner incomes and shows that pensioners in the top two quintiles of pensioner incomes—the fourth and fifth quintiles—receive a higher income in absolute terms from social security benefit than pensioners in the bottom quintile. It seems difficult to defend a social security system under which pensioners at the top of the income range do better out of the state than pensioners in the poorest 20 per cent. That is why the improved targeting of social security benefits must be placed high on the agenda of any social security review.
It is important to make a distinction—one which is often overlooked. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) overlooked the fact that targeting does not necessarily mean means testing. Means testing is one way of targeting, but there are other ways. One of the insights contained in the original report of William Beveridge was that if one defines the category of benefit recipient carefully enough, one can produce a benefit that is well targeted on poverty without having to use means testing.
In preparing his report, Beveridge surveyed the social conditions of England at the time and identified the groups of people on low income—such as unemployed people and pensioners—and saw that benefits going to them would be well targeted on poverty. Patterns of income and social conditions in this country have changed, so it seems reasonable for the Government to investigate whether there are different categories of recipients who should receive benefits, and to ensure that the benefits are well targeted on them.
Let us consider the stages in the life cycle. It is clear that, by and large, poor families are one-earner families, which generally have young children. Nowadays, when children reach school age, most mothers go out to work. If we want to target a benefit on families on particularly low incomes, we should focus any increase in child benefit expenditure on children under the age of five. In that way, we shall be targeting the benefits on poverty among families. I have seen the mischievous suggestion that I am keen on the idea as I have two children aged under five, but my argument is not entirely autobiographical.
I accept that the direct costs of young children are lower than the costs of teenagers, but if one also includes in the equation the income that the family sacrifices because mothers with young children tend not to work, then the overall picture is different. There is clear evidence that the poorer families tend to be those with young children.
The analysis can also be applied to the other end of the life cycle. When we consider poverty among pensioners, it becomes clear that the pensioners who find it most difficult to make ends meet are the older ones—those over 80, particularly widows. That is why it would be absurd to

spend any social security resources on extending pensions to men aged 60 to 65. I do not know of one social policy expert who says that the real target for extra social security spending should be men aged 60 to 65. They all say that the target should be to help alleviate poverty among older pensioners over the age of 80, particularly widows.
It is for those reasons that I hope that the Government's current review of the pension age will raise the female pension age to 65. Once that process has begun, there is no reason why it should not go further. Some of the savings reaped by that measure could be put towards increasing the value of the pension for those aged over 80. That would be a considerable improvement in targeting and could be achieved without means testing.

Mr. Frank Field: The hon. Gentleman used the phrase, "some of the savings". Is his speech on reforming the welfare state purely about targeting, or about targeting and cutting the size of the social security budget?

Mr. Willetts: Our social security budget is heading towards 13 per cent. of the entire national income, so it is important to save money on that budget as it will be difficult to sustain. However, it is possible both to save money on social security and to target the remaining expenditure more effectively. There is no reason why a responsible Government should not achieve both aims.
The scope for shifting from state provision to private provision through insurance should also be considered in the review of social security. I should like to identify some areas where progress could be made. The hon. Member for Garscadden referred to industrial injuries benefit. I agree with him on that point. It seems absurd that companies do not themselves take responsibility for compensating employees who suffer industrial injuries and that compensation is provided through a state scheme with a standard contribution. That means safe employers subsidising dangerous employers. It sends out the wrong signals.
Employers in dangerous industries where there are high rates of industrial injuries should be forced to contemplate the improvement of their working practices, not because of cumbersome interventions from Brussels but because their insurance premiums are high and they recognise that they can reduce them by reducing the number of injuries. That would be sensible privatisation of a social security benefit, which would also contribute to the important objective of ensuring that workplaces are safe.
Another area is the expenditure, now running at nearly £1,000 million a year, on mortgages for people who are on income support. There is no reason why the state should act as the guarantor of last resort for commercial loans entered into by building societies. Why should it not be possible for people to take out insurance so that their mortgage payments could be maintained if they suffered the misfortune of losing their jobs?
Unemployment benefit has also been talked about. I must confess to some scepticism there. If any progress can be made in that regard, I would welcome it, but we have to acknowledge that many unemployed are young. They have either no earnings record or only an intermittent record on low pay. For them to accumulate the record of paying insurance premiums which would be the basis for sustaining them while unemployed seems difficult. That is a practical problem which would need to be addressed.
Finally, there is the pension itself. As we have heard several speculative quotations from newspapers, some of which we have established were not accurate, I will quote from a newspaper article of 40 years ago. The heading is "Social Security Under Review". Almost exactly 40 years ago, the Conservative Government launched a review of the social security budget.
Lord Beveridge contributed an article to The Times, identifying the options which he thought should be examined. He made it clear that he already thought that his system of national insurance benefits had suffered as a result of the extra costs imposed by the Labour Government. He set out an agenda for the issues which should be considered when contemplating the future of the pension and it may be a good guide to the issues that the present Government might wish to address in the years ahead. He said that the Phillips Committee, the body set up then,
should examine any methods by which the prospective burden on the general taxpayer for pensions to those past work can be lightened. The methods possible in theory include encouraging voluntary delay of retirement; raising the minimum age for pensions; exclusion from social insurance pensions and contribution for them of persons adequately covered by superannuation schemes in their particular employments; increase of insurance contributions.
In regard to the minimum pension age, I might point out that he later advocated that a full pension should not be payable until the age of 67. There is no reason why the Government should be reluctant to embark on an examination of the options which Lord Beveridge raised 40 years ago.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I feel slightly left out in these debates. I have always felt left out in the past because people were never nasty about. me. I do not know why that is. What I have said is never quoted or questioned. That is bad. I am beginning to develop a complex. I am also feeling left out because I am not having a review. Everybody else seems to be having reviews, so I might as well announce a review, just by myself. I will do a deal with the Secretary of State; I will submit evidence to his review if he will submit evidence to mine.
I want to speak for a few minutes in this important debate. Sometimes such debates degenerate into ritual. I hope that hon. Members will not take the wrong meaning from that. The debate is an annual event in the social security calendar and it becomes ritualistic. Nevertheless it is an important opportunity to discuss aspects of social security generally.
Although it is not related directly to the uprating statement, the Secretary of State commented on fraud and the need to examine the administrative procedures to be used by his Department. I am as keen as every other hon. Member to make savings on fraud, and to try to root out housing benefit fraud particularly with the assistance of local authorities. However, I am concerned about some claims that the Secretary of State seemed to be making about the amount that he could save on the fraud provisions which he announced in the uprating statement.
I would be reassured if in the reply to the debate, or in a letter subsequently, the Secretary of State could flesh out what further thought had been given to the issue. I understand that the Department had to put up a strong case to the Treasury to get the grant, which I support, but

I am nervous that the Secretary of State's claim about the amount which he could save on fraud, £1 billion a year, may be a bridge too far. I would be reassured by more of the detail behind that statement.
In that connection, I have had interesting correspondence from people who work in the Department and who are concerned about administrative changes. I understand that floating around the Department there is a document called the Mayhew report, if I have the name right. I should like to see that report. Responsible staff who are conscientious about their duties are concerned about some administrative changes that have been made. In a time of citizens charters, open government and all the rest of it, perhaps all I have to do is ask for the report, which I have just done. If I cannot get a copy of it, perhaps in the letter which the Secretary of State will send me about fraud he will tell me precisely why.
I too think that 3.6 per cent. may be par for the course in terms of the legal requirements. However, I have to draw attention to a point which is made with monotonous regularity in these debates; benefit recipients are falling further and further behind those who are earning more than the increase in the retail price index. I accept that the RPI is 3.6 per cent. I accept what the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said about what that will mean in real terms, having regard to inflation, this spring, but year in, year out, pensioners and other benefit recipients fall further behind in the wealth stakes in comparison to those who are lucky enough to be in employment.
The average male earnings figure equivalent to the 3.6 per cent. RPI increase is 4.7 per cent. It may be true that the difference does not add up to a big row of beans in one year, but year by year that inexorably puts people in receipt of benefit at a chronic disadvantage. We must never forget that in the social security uprating debates.
I was not particularly taken with the Secretary of State's comments about statutory sick pay. That is to be frozen, saving some £20 million. I do not understand why statutory sick pay was singled out. Maternity pay has also been frozen at £100. I am worried about future increases. The capital limits and earnings disregards should be considered carefully in the Government review, because there is real scope for progress. The 21-hour study limit and the 24-hour employment limit for those engaged in voluntary activity could be changed to try to encourage people to do part-time work to assist themselves when they are on benefit.
The reduction in invalidity benefit of £240 million is premature. A research project that is currently under way, which is expected to report towards the end of 1993, would provide a valuable insight into what could be done with invalidity benefit. I understand what the Government have done in that direction and I welcome the fact that a great deal more money is being spent, but it is wrong to use this uprating statement to make a change in advance of those research findings.
It is becoming obvious from my case work and from talking to other Members of Parliament that insufficient account is being taken of the increases in water charges. I hope that the Government will monitor their effect on the benefit system. I welcome the fact that the Government have not adopted the proposal to claw back funds relating to the community charge.
I continue to be worried about the take-up rates for some means-tested benefits, especially family credit and income support. The evidence from research projects is


equivocal. The Government may say that it is still early days, that the changes only came in in 1988 and that such matters take a little time to take effect; I am aware of that. Nevertheless the Government should pay careful attention to how the take-up rates develop.
I am also a little disappointed that something more progressive and beneficial was not done with the social fund. If the Minister has the opportunity when he replies, I hope that he will say something about the comments made by the Social Services Advisory Committee and the Social Policy Research Unit about the social fund.
I have been making some desultory overtures to the Department about the needs of share fishermen in Scotland. A real problem is beginning to emerge. I do not complain that the Government have not dealt with it, because it is a new problem. Share fishermen are having their earning capacity statutorily reduced by the provision for tie-up days in the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1992. I think that they are the only earning group in the British economy with statutory restrictions placed on the amount of money that they are entitled to earn.
The fishermen are self-employed and there are some problems with how help could be administered. I have been casting around, trying to find some way of getting them access to additional support while statutory restrictions apply to their right to go to sea to earn a living. I accept that it is a complicated matter, but I hope that the Government recognise the problem and will carefully monitor what is happening The number of people involved is not large, but some families are dependent on crew members of boats that are now tied up for long stretches. They are suffering badly.

Mr. Frank Field: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is inconsistency in the Government's attitude? They say that one reason why they do not want the House to adopt the Maastricht social chapter is that it lays down foolish rules, such as limiting the amount of work that people can do. They want people to be able to work for as long as they want to work. On the other hand, the Government are limiting the amount of work that can be done by the fishermen to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Kirkwood: The experience of the Chairman of the Social Services Select Committee is all-knowing and all-embracing. He even speaks effectively on behalf of share fishermen. I shall report that with some pleasure to the fishermen at the quayside market in Eyemouth on Friday afternoon.

Dr. Godman: Is it not true that at one time those fishermen were allowed to draw unemployment benefit when they could not put to sea because of circumstances beyond their control—for example, heavy weather or the boat being out of the water for repair? Because of the statutory limit on days at sea, those fishermen are now in precisely the same position.

Mr. Kirkwood: The change in the weekly earnings rule had a severe impact on share fishermen, some of whom were denied access to unemployment benefit. That blow hit them some years ago. I represent a fishing constituency and my experience is that something is wrong and action needs to be taken.
I want to voice two more gripes before I sit down. The first refers to war pensions and the changes in the provisions for noise-induced hearing loss. I understand and accept that we are discussing a package deal, so the rank differentials that have been eroded or abolished are acceptable. However, although it is right to have stringent conditions when ensuring that there is a direct link between hearing loss and active service, having established that link I do not understand how it can be fair not to base the award on the degree of disability. I have always understood that war pensions were a legal entitlement, but that entitlement is being summarily withdrawn.
I understand the Government's case that the package, in the round, will benefit people in other directions. That is welcome. However, former service men who have suffered that disability are right to feel slightly let down and to hold the Government to account. They want further explanations of exactly why the change was made.
Secondly, I am concerned about the demise of the independent living fund. I noticed some interesting exchanges in written questions and answers between the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and the Minister. The hon. Member for Garscadden is looking surprised. He asked how much it would cost to extend the successor to the independent living fund to those who had gone beyond retirement age. The answer is interesting. Only a £2 million increase in the successor fund would be needed to extend it to people beyond retirement age. The figure would increase to £6 million next year and £9 million the year after. Those are not insignificant sums, but I hope that the Government will seriously consider providing them. That is food for thought for the Department.
I want to say a few words about carers. The increase in the invalid care allowance and the carer premium of 3.6 per cent. to £33.70 and £11.95 respectively are all very well as far as they go. The Government have estimated that the changes will benefit 189,000 recipients of invalid care allowance and 70,000 recipients of carer premium. However, carers are the main providers of community care and they save the country almost £24 billion a year, according to figures produced by some pressure groups.
Some 26 per cent. of all carers and 40 per cent. of all older carers are living in some poverty, often as a direct result of their caring responsibilities. The increases announced in the uprating statement will mean that the invalid care allowance will represent only 10.69 per cent. of national average earnings, which is not adequate recompense for the service to the community that those people perform. Older carers cannot claim ICA for the first time after the age of 65, and without entitlement to ICA the poorest older carers cannot claim the carer premium either.
There are also problems with claiming unemployment benefit when the individual returns to the employment market after he or she has finished caring. If that individual was looking after someone receiving the lower rate of care component, they cannot claim ICA. I appreciate that big sums of money are involved in making some of those changes, but I hope that the Government's review will consider carefully the support that carers are to receive in the longer term.
I hope that the review is successful, and that it will be open and genuine. I hope also that we shall all have a chance to make submissions. I shall do so to the best of my ability. The uprating statement is acceptable and welcome


as far as it goes, but the Government have missed another opportunity to be more progressive and imaginative in providing more support to those who need it most.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I like to think that not the disagreement between both sides of the House but the large degree of agreement will impress people who are watching this debate, or who rush out to buy copies of Hansard to read all about it. Ultimately, however, the chasm is narrow but deep—which means that there is a living for us to earn. One thing I noticed is that, since the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has been in charge of his present duties, the tone of these debates is much more reflective.
That is something of a disadvantage. Sometimes it is easier to repel a polarised situation by indulging in coarse oratory. When the hon. Gentleman sets out his stall, he does so in such a persuasive way that one has to pinch oneself to think that he might be in error. Whatever other tricks one may produce in debates in which the hon. Gentleman participates, a knee jerk or an elbow to the solar plexus will not repel the hon. Gentleman.
In tonight's debate, as in some recent debates, it has become clear that there is common ground in the sense that it is acknowledged that some regard must be paid to where the money to pay the benefits one wants to pay is to come from. I do not say this in any partisan way, because there has been no trace of that tonight, or for some little while. Even in the 10 years that I have been in the House, I have heard vestigial voices saying that the way to achieve the pension system that we want for all our constituents in need is to raid that great pot of gold out there, if only the Government of the day would do that.
For a long time, it was thought that if one could only get one's hands on the money of the rich, one could improve the benefits system dramatically. That is a lovely idea, but it does not hang together. Around 89 per cent. of taxpayers pay only basic rate tax, so if one confiscated all the money earned above the basic rate level, it would still be a drop in the ocean in terms of improving the benefits system generally. It is common ground on both sides of the House that we must to a large extent have a benefits system that we can afford.
It was clear from the experiences of the last Labour Government that, no matter how good one's intentions, at the end of the day one's finances can find one out. In a bygone age, one could swap remarks across the Chamber about Labour being the party that took away the Christmas bonus one year, or rigged its own pension arrangements so that, having awarded pensions linked to incomes, it then had to avoid them.
All that is true, but I do not say that it was done with dishonour. That Labour Government had the best of intentions. They produced a mechanism which, had the Government been able to fund it, would have brought substantial benefits to the pensioners concerned. Ultimately, that Labour Government's good intentions failed because the country could not generate the income necessary to realise them. The common ground between us now seems to be that the Government must be able to raise the money needed from the tax revenue produced.
The hon. Member for Garscadden said that, although he could accept the 3.6 per cent. uprating, it was not very much. One might ask him rhetorically, "Given the state of

the economy, where would you get the money to produce a better level of pensions?" Quick as a flash, the hon. Gentleman would reply, "We would never be faced with that problem because we wouldn't get the economy in this state." If I sat on the other side of the House, I would defy the facts and make that reply as well. It remains true that, in any economy, one must see what can be afforded. I do not see what more could be done, and we must simply face up to that.
We must consider some of the more sombre steps that we may yet have to take. Reference has been made, properly, to the amount of Government borrowing necessary to finance the present benefits system. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that we had gone too far, and should set about cutting benefits; the fact is, however, that the Government have decided that they can fund benefits on current levels, through taxes and borrowing.
That is an important point, which may yet be the basis for a significant difference between the two sides of the House. In the last public expenditure settlement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor started on the basis of the amount that the country could afford, and then decided how that money could be allocated. It is clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security fought his corner with considerable skill: he managed to ensure that all benefits were uprated sufficiently, while at the same time operating within a budget that had been decided in the first place not on the basis of what we would like to spend, but on the basis of what was available. That was rather brave.
For all our different reasons, we hope that my right hon. Friend's move will work this year. If it does, however, we must look into the future, and ask ourselves whether such action will always be possible. Will there come a time, sooner or later—perhaps sooner—when the Chancellor of the day decides what can be afforded, and then looks at the social security budget in its entirety? If so, that Chancellor may decide that it is simply not possible to maintain benefits along the lines that we would like.
It is curious that remarks such as this should be swapped across the Floor of the House—for instance, that it should be suggested that the Leader of the Opposition may be thinking of taxing or means-testing benefits, or, at least, not entirely ruling out such action—when the Government are having to conduct a review. I see nothing dishonourable in some of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition.
When I quoted some of those remarks to the hon. Member for Garscadden, he said that the words meant what they said: I think that he was accusing me of putting a gloss or spin on them. I did not need to, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words were perfectly plain. He said that there might be a case for many benefits to remain universal, but that it was only right to be prepared to re-examine anything; he did not rule anything out of court.
More recently, the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of
a strong case for maintaining universality, everyone having access to child benefit and retirement pensions to which they have contributed during their working lives. The commission is perfectly free to propose all sorts of subtractions and additions and alternatives".
A cynic might say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman really meant that, even if the commission made


such a proposal, he would not adopt it; but I do not think that that is a mark of this Leader of the Opposition. I believe that, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is telling his own commission that it is
perfectly free to propose all sorts of subtractions and additions and alternatives",
he genuinely intends to consider them.
I see no great difference between that and the concept mentioned recently by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He suggested that people with sufficient means might wish to make their own arrangements rather than relying on the state system. Surely, we are talking about two ways of acknowledging the same truth—that it is not sufficient to say that we would like to do without dealing with how such action is to be funded.
The hon. Member for Garscadden countered that argument with great force and sincerity. He suggested that there would be something" wrong with a system that allowed, indeed almost obliged, the prosperous middle classes—to coin a loose phrase—to contract out of the welfare state, and then simply to leave it there for those who would have to rely on it. I accept, in terms of argument and debate, that it would be wrong, unwelcome and thoroughly unhelpful if those who had been obliged to contract out entirely then regarded what was left as an incubus.
I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that some mean-minded people would not see it in that way; clearly they would. However, I do not think that that would be the predominant view in British society. I do not believe that those who educate their children privately have no regard for those who educate them in the state sector, and I know that no one would seriously make that bald statement in the House.
Let me cite a more homely example. The level of owner-occupation is probably very high on both sides of the House, but I cannot imagine that those who own their own houses would have no regard for people who live in council houses on rents essentially subsidised by the Department of the Environment.
I understand the point that the hon. Member for Garscadden makes. If what he fears were to come to pass, it would be a powerful argument against going in that direction, but I do not believe that British society works in that way. If that seems too extravagant a proposition, let me put it another way. In the House of Commons, even in this new age of the middle ground, there is still a pretty wide descrepancy between those on the right of the Conservative party and those on the left of the Labour party. But those two groups have one thing in common: they are both prepared to come here and legislate in this way. I accept that the hon. Gentleman believes that there is a risk. I do not think so. What I see are different ways of reaching the conclusion that the Leader of the Opposition seems to be working towards.
A moment ago, I said that we might yet, in the not too distant future, have to face decisions that would make it simply impossible for us to spend and uprate across the board. It will be particularly difficult for the governing party to face up to such decisions, and particularly tempting for the party in opposition to exploit the situation. If the roles were reversed, the Conservative party would be subject to that temptation. One has only to

consider what has happened to the retired population to realise that we are storing up a problem of gigantic proportions, which we shall have to try to address. At present, the proportion of supporting taxpayers to pensioners is slightly more than three to one. By the early decades of the next century it will have fallen to about two to one.
If one makes that point to the classic awkward pensioner whom every Tory candidate is terrified to meet during a general election campaign—the Albert Tatlocks of this world—they say, "I don't want to know about the burden on the working population. I paid my dues over the years. I fought in a world war." I know a few people who fought in two. They don't want to know about the burden their pensions represent for the working population. Although those people's contributions give them the right to be supported by the working population, the practical ability to maintain them in the style to which they wish to be accustomed lies outside what can be achieved with the tax contributions of the working population.
As the proportion of workers to pensioners decreases markedly, there will be some pretty tough decisions to be made. Perhaps the most partisan remark that I need to make in this connection is that, to some extent, the justification for the optimism of the Labour party in thinking that it can once again be the governing party will be indicated by the extent to which it helps the Government in this debate. I cannot for one moment imagine that the Opposition spokesman wants to spend the next 20 years fighting on the Labour Front Bench and finally, in his grey-haired years, come to the Government side and find that he has only two taxpayers to support each retired person. It seems to me that, if the hon. Gentleman really believes in the Labour revival, he will have to enter into this debate.
On these occasions, it is worth concentrating on the points that unite us. As this debate proceeds, it will be interesting to see the extent to which, in the end, there is no difference between us. As a member of the Select Committee on Social Security, I sometimes find myself outflanked on the right by the Chairman, and sometimes think that I am outflanking him on the left. If that is an indication of a constructive debate, it will ultimately be so much harder for the Government to cover up any sins. Of course, they do not have such sins, so the risk does not exist.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: It is no surprise that this debate about the uprating statement has also been a debate on the Government's reviews of public spending—particularly the reviews of social security spending. Future uprating statements, whether under a Conservative Government or a Labour Government, will depend critically on our ability to look rigorously at public spending on social security.
Although Front Benchers may have fun with one another about each other's reviews, it is surely no coincidence that both the Labour party and the Government have now launched fundamental reviews. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) felt a little anxious that the Liberal party did


not have a review. If I were he, I should say that my party had had a very good review—the Beveridge report of 50 years ago—even if it needs some radical updating.
It was a bit rich of the Secretary of State to attack us for having an independent review. Why should he attack a privatised review? He made it clear in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) that his will be a secret review, and therefore a classic nationalised review. We live in strange times when such criticisms are made.
I welcome the need for a fundamental and long-term review, but note much foreboding in our community about the Government's review and their intentions. I see many honest citizens in Croydon and throughout the country reaching for their purses and wallets when they hear about the Government's review. I ask why that is.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, announcing the public expenditure review, said that we needed to distinguish between essential and avoidable costs. That must be right; it is simple and truthful stuff with which we can all agree. What are the implications for this review? Although any proper analysis of social security spending should start at the beginning, I worry that the Government might start at the end. In other words, they might start where they can save money—what benefits they can cut —and make a political calculation about what they can get away with at the next election. Perhaps I am being too logical, but I think that we should start not at the end but at the beginning. I will say what I mean by that in a moment.
Let us acknowledge that this is not the first Government review. At least two or three times since 1979 the Government have said, "We need a fundamental review; we need to constrain or reduce public expenditure."

Mr. Dewar: Fowler.

Mr. Wicks: The Fowler review comes to mind, but in their 1990 White Paper the Government clearly stated their objectives:
The Government intend to reduce public expenditure progressively in volume terms over the next four years.
That did not work. They did not reduce public expenditure in real terms or any other terms. In fact, public spending increased dramatically from £203 billion in real terms at the beginning of this Administration in 1978–79 to a significant £258 billion in 1992–93.
Although there have been many differences across the Chamber—more, frankly, than some hon. Members, in a spirit of politeness, have acknowledged—any Government will face fundamental questions. What do I mean when I urge the Government to start at the beginning of the story and not at the end? I think that we need, first, to ask questions about social change in Britain: how do people live and work, and how will that look up to the year 2000? Given that analysis, what trends are making for social insecurity, and what trends and what policy development could make for social security? My fear is that in future we may not have enough money to give decent benefits to people who have to rely on social security because, for the want of better policies, we are having to provide benefits for people who, in a better world, would not need to depend on social security.
The second task of a proper review would be to state its objectives. The objectives of any proper review of social security would be to ask, how do we develop policies,

which often have nothing to do with the DSS, that enhance economic well-being and enable our citizens to become financially independent? Only after that would we need to focus on those who, because of disability or advanced old age, have to depend, quite properly, on universal state benefits.
I will explain my point in three ways. The first is the most obvious, but I make no excuse for returning to the theme of unemployment. Unless we make up our mind as a society to attack Beveridge's giant evil of idleness or unemployment, all our plans, as he said 50 years ago, and as I more modestly say today, for social well-being and social security are out of reach. If we have to spend large sums of money, often paying very low benefits but to masses of people, we shall not in future be able to cater for all the modern needs for which a decent society should cater.
We shall not be able to cater for the needs of the carers, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said, the needs of the growing numbers of people with disabilities or those who, in frail old age, often and rightly—have to turn to the state for help. They include not least the generation which has missed out on the private and occupational pension revolution.
The Government must come clean at the beginning of their review. Do they see a future of mass unemployment? If so, they can hardly quarrel with the expenditure implications which consume a daily growing proportion of our social security budget and of our gross domestic product. They must come clean about their employment, full employment or unemployment assumptions.
The White Paper on public spending clearly shows how much we as a society are spending to keep people out of work who want to work. When we consider the trends among one-parent families and some longer-term sick people who are on benefit, we cannot but ask questions: how many of them would be in work and not on benefit if we were to approach full employment again? There are hidden costs of unemployment in the public expenditure White Paper, which we should make as visible as possible.
A fundamental review of social security and unemployment is more about macro-economic and employment policies and about child care and training than about social security policy. Therefore, I urge the Secretary of State to introduce an interdepartmental element into his inquiry.
My second illustration of starting at the beginning rather than the end of the story involves family breakdown. One of the demographic and social revolutions affecting not only a European society such as ours but others across the world is, sadly, the growing number of children who spend some or all of their childhood in one-parent rather than two-parent families. Almost four out of 10 new marriages will end in divorce, so a large percentage of children exprience family breakdown.
That revolution has not been painless. The fact that 70 per cent. of today's one-parent families depend on income support reflects the failure of society to comprehend or to cope with that revolution. A higher proportion—about 85 per cent.—of one-parent families will spend some time on state income support. That is bad news not only for mothers, children and society as a whole, because life on income support is rotten, but for taxpayers, public expenditure and the economy. I do not believe that life needs to be like that.
In Sweden, for example, the picture is quite different. About 80 per cent. of one-parent families are not on the Swedish equivalent of income support, but in employment. There are many reasons for that, including the fact that the state has intervened through labour market policies, employment training and child care to help people socially. Of course there are costs involved in intervening through the state, but the social and economic savings have been colossal. Our failure not only to comprehend family breakdown but to prevent it and to help its victims has major public expenditure implications. The Government should start there rather than by asking whether they can cut a bit off benefits for one-parent families.
My third example deals with the subject of aging, which various hon. Members have mentioned. There has also been a social and demographic revolution of aging, which has major consequences for public expenditure and pensions policy. We shall hear more about that after I April, when the so-called community care policy comes into effect.
We are beginning to have a vigorous debate, but there is not yet a consensus on who should meet the costs of aging, either for pensions or, in particular, for care. Soon the Government—any Government—will have to grapple with the equalisation of pension ages.
That is a several billion pound question. Do we go back to 60? The Government would say that we could not afford that. Do we equalise at 63? Do we go to 65? Do we follow the advice of the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) —we now find out that he was apparently quoting Beveridge—and go for 67? Those are important questions. We should not consider those questions in isolation, but should relate them to the other questions with which hon. Members on both sides of the House have to grapple, about the right future mix between public and private provision. We may disagree about that mix, but we should have the debate.
As has been pointed out, the poorest groups are people in their late 70s and in their 80s and 90s, who have missed out on the private pension revolution and who may now need targeted help. I agree with the hon. Member for Havant that such help need not be means-tested—indeed, I urge that it should not be means-tested.
Let us ask questions about the pattern of retirement. Let us not talk about pensioners as a grey mass, which they are not: they are many millions of individuals, some of whom want to retire early and some of whom want to work until they drop and never retire. Let us have flexibility and look at the actuarial implications in ways which make sense to people. Let us not treat people as a mass who have to retire either at 60, 65 or 67—or even 57. Let us offer them choices and freedom, and discover how we can do that in ways which enhance social welfare but also make sense in terms of public expenditure. Those are the important questions.
Finally, the review—

Mr. Frank Field: Ours or theirs?

Mr. Wicks: Both. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead who, almost echoing Government policy, called for open government on the issue. Such fundamental questions should not be about political fixes and cutting benefits. Why do we not

encourage public debate on them? Why not consider a discussion paper, a Green Paper, a series of meetings or whatever, to engage the public in the discussion? There are no clear answers. There may be disagreements. At the end of the day, the Government will come to their own decision, with a White Paper and perhaps legislation. But why not encourage a public debate?
I support the review if it turns out to be long-term, fundamental and open. We need to review those questions. Any Government approaching the year 2000 will face difficult social questions involving public expenditure. Let us open the debate beyond this Chamber to the wider mass of people who have a major interest in the issues.

Mr. Charles Hendry: There has been some discussion during the debate about speeches being recycled, so I shall say at the outset that I wrote my speech myself, and that it has not been used before. When I have finished it hon. Members may realise the benefits of recycling speeches and using them time and again—especially when they are as good as the one that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made to the Young Conservatives conference at the weekend.
I was briefly tempted to use again the speech which I made in the debate on the Social Security Bill last November, because no one took any notice of it at the time, so no one would have realised if I had used it again tonight. But then I was much more tempted to re-use the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), which brought in so many new ideas and so much enlightened thinking.
I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), and during its 29 minutes I was wondering whether he might effectively dispel Conservative Members' belief that there had indeed been a gloomy feeling among Opposition Members at the time of the uprating statement. On that occasion we could see, as Opposition Members could not, the faces of those sitting on the Benches opposite us. We saw how miserable they were. Where, even today, were the words of welcome for the uprating statement?
Eventually, after twenty-eight and a half minutes, the hon. Member for Garscadden got there. He said that he welcomed the statement "as far as it goes." That was a magnanimous gesture by the Labour party—but the hon. Gentleman immediately went on to attack the amounts of money involved. We always hear from the Labour party how to spend wealth. Now and again it would be nice to hear Labour Members tell us about how to create wealth.
We hear attacks on the amount of money paid in benefits. The hon. Member for Garscadden says that it is not enough, that it is a measly amount—but does he tell us how much he would spend? Does he give us an inkling of how much the Labour party believes the benefits should be? He does not, because we would ask how much that would cost. Labour Members would not tell us; we should have to tell them how much it would cost. Please will the Labour party come clean? If Labour wants to challenge us on the amounts paid in benefits—all Conservative Members would like to see the levels of benefits increased —please will Labour Members tell us the level to which they think benefits should be increased?
It is only a year ago that Labour was more open and was telling us that Labour party policy was that pensions


should be raised for a single person to one third of average income and to half average income for a married couple. The hon. Member for Garscadden makes an unlikely Father Christmas. Indeed, it has been uncharitably said that he thinks that charisma is 25 December. Christmas presents come ill from the Labour party which twice cancelled the pensioners' Christmas bonus.
Labour's commitment to raise pensions by that amount would have cost £25 billion. We do not know whether Labour still stands by that policy. If Labour had stood by that policy and if it was now in government, we should not be considering a fundamental review of Government spending and how to allocate resources, but a closing down sale. As happened before, we should have found that we were spending infinitely more than we could afford. We at least have the courage to recognise that and the integrity to try to challenge those issues.
We are now told that we have a new Labour party, the fourth new Labour party after four election defeats. From his remarks, it is clear that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) recognises, as we do, that a fifth election defeat is likely for Labour.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hendry: In view of the charitable comments that my hon. Friends pile on the hon. Gentleman, it would be churlish not to give way to him.

Mr. Field: I was not saying that a fifth defeat was inevitable. I said that a victory is there for us, but that we need to make fundamental changes. These debates offer that opportunity. Other opportunities arise to make that contribution to the party. I believe that we should run the Conservatives really close next time and that we should put the fear of God into them that they will lose their red boxes, their chauffeur-driven cars and all the trappings of power. Labour should be serious this time about that objective.

Mr. Hendry: We do not mind Labour running us close as long as it does not win. As long as the majority does not drop below 19, we can live with it. We plan to increase that majority ourselves.
Having seen the new, new model Labour party, we could look around justifiably for clarification about its policies. We looked forward with great excitement last week to the speech by the Leader of the Opposition in which we thought that he would set out the new agenda and the way forward. We thought that he would of course talk about social security. Sadly, he did not. Social security did not get a mention.
We were obliged to wait until this week when the Leader of the Opposition was interviewed by The Times. That shows how much the party has changed. A few years ago, even last year, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have had an interview with The Guardian. Some of his colleagues would have gone to the Morning Star. Now, Mr. Murdoch is in favour and Labour Members are prepared to talk to The Times. We welcome that transformation. However, we find that we still lack a clear explanation of the party's way forward.
We know of Labour's commission on social justice. Conservative Members have attempted to find out how fundamental the review will be. I quote what Labour has said:
There is a strong case for maintaining universality".

As has been said already in this debate—we have to challenge you on the issue because you will not tell us what it means—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not use the word "you". He has repeatedly done so. I am not responsible for anything of which he has accused me.

Mr. Hendry: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should have realised that.
The quotation continues:
everyone having access to child benefit and retirement pensions to which they have contributed during their working lives.
Again, there is universality. The quotation continues:
The commission is perfectly free to propose all sorts of subtractions and additions and alternatives.
In spite of the challenges from Conservative Members, the Labour party will not tell us whether it means that as an open-ended review or whether it seeks to use weasel words to pretend that it wants both sides of the circle playing together.
I shall concentrate not on the way of the past, which is what we hear from the Labour party, but on the way forward. I shall pick up some of the points so excellently explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts).
We have two priorities in social security. First, how do we stop people drifting or moving into dependency? Secondly, how do we help people to come out of dependency? I do not see it as one of our priorities to seek to sustain people and keep them in dependency. That should not be one of our goals.
If we are to stop people moving into dependency, one of our key principles must be to help people to prepare for times of difficulty or illness, or simply for the process of getting older. That is why we believe so strongly in private, personal and occupational pensions. It is a source of great sadness to us that there is still no cross party recognition of the fact that planning ahead should be welcomed rather than scorned.
It cannot be right to spread benefits so wide that those in need do not get the help that they genuinely require because too much help is being given to those who do not require it. I referred just now to massive increases in pensions. If one gives large increases to everyone—including people with large personal incomes on retirement—we shall make it increasingly difficult to target help on those in genuine need. If one asks a child, "Do you want a lollipop?" he will say yes. If one asks a child, "Do you want to pay for it?" one will get a slightly different reply. We must accept that higher levels of benefit cost money.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said, we are faced with the problem of a working population that is shrinking relative to those who will be living and requiring support from the state. Planning ahead is not callous. It is not a vicious 19th-century Tory principle. It is common sense and reflects the aspirations of people throughout the country.
If we are to be honest about targeting, we shall have to look at some other sacred cows. I know that this does not necessarily fall within the Department's responsibilities, but we must challenge the long-term future of mortgage interest relief. We spend more than £5 billion a year


helping people with their mortgages, even though many of them can well afford to pay them. As a result, other people in need of housing support receive less than they require.
Now that the housing market has bottomed out, I hope that we shall gradually start to tackle that principle. With a base rate of tax of 20 per cent., we could start by saying that mortgage interest relief should start at 20 per cent. rather than 25 per cent. That alone would create a saving of £1 billion which could go towards reducing the deficit or towards spending elsewhere.
How does one help people to move out of dependency? Too often, the policies of the past have worked to trap people in dependency. Over many years, choice has been removed. Let us consider what has happened in our inner-city areas, where such policies are most important. The state—either at local or national level—has said to people, "We will look after you. We will look after your housing, education and health. We will look after you when you are young and when you are old and in all aspects of your life. You need worry about nothing. The state knows best. The state will look after it."
In many areas, we have rolled back that principle, but in some areas it survives and people have lost the ability to choose. It is not that they do not want to choose but that they do not understand how to. They are frightened of making choices. Over the past 14 years, we have been tackling those problems gradually. Initially, we told people who wanted to take an opportunity that we would take off the lid that had been holding them down and allow them to make a choice. We told people that, if they wanted to buy their council house, buy shares in a company or start up a business, they could go ahead and do it. Then there was a second tranche consisting of people less willing to take the leap. To them, we said, "We will give you an incentive to start taking out personal pensions and to buy shares."
Our priority must now be to consider people who come into neither category. We shall not achieve that merely by shaking the benefits tree—although it is certainly important to ensure that people do not get benefits to which they are not entitled. For many people, the benefits tree represents security. It is not like a tree of apples from which ripe fruit drops when one shakes it. Many will cling more tightly because the tree is their security.
I agree with some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), who said that we require a cross-departmental system. The benefits system is part of the package, but we also need to look more widely. Let me give a couple of examples. Many single parents are in dependency for the simple reason that they do not have the opportunity to go out to work. The mother cannot raise income because she has no one to look after the child, and she cannot simply get a job. We need to look at that cross-departmentally.
In my constituency, we have a shortage of housing. In one area we have a number of empty police houses. We have two empty police houses side by side, which is a chronic waste in an area of housing shortage. We should examine whether those empty houses could be turned into units for single parents with children under school age. The houses could be turned into four or five units and single parents would have facilities on site and a child minder. The mother would have the opportunity to get a

job without placing an extra burden on the state for a massive provision of child-minding support. In that way, we could help single parents to find work, start tackling their problems and looking to a brighter future.
The same could be said of the unemployed. We should not look simply at how we support unemployed people. We must see how we can give people the cross-departmental support which they need to make them ready to move back into work. For that reason, we need to be open-minded on the principle of working for benefits.

Mr. Winnick: If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly, he referred to unemployed people moving back into work. Does he realise that the overwhelming majority of unemployed people do not want to rely on benefits of any sort? When vacancies occur, there will often be 500 or 600 people applying for a single vacancy. Sometimes they queue all night for the opportunity of getting a job. The responsibility for what has happened lies with the Government. The hon. Gentleman should be concerned that millons of people are denied the right to work.

Mr. Hendry: If the hon. Gentleman looks across the channel, he will see a socialist Government which has pursued socialist policies and which has an unemployment rate that is almost the same as that in the United Kingdom. It is not a question of the Government's policies having failed. The United Kingdom, significantly as a result of our refusing to take on board the social chapter, is ready for growth, and most of the independent reports expect it to have the highest rate of growth in the European Community by the end of this year. Perhaps the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) can look more at the positive aspects than the negative ones.
The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that unemployed people want jobs. The worst waste for unemployed people is having nothing to do, sitting around all day at home or getting up late and losing the work attitude.
I have been unemployed twice—once when I left university 12 years ago, in a similar time for graduates as it is now, and shortly thereafter. I know what it is like to write letters and wait for replies. One finds that many people do not bother to reply and many other people simply give one a dismissive letter as though they have not considered the application. In those circumstances, it is difficult to maintain morale and continue looking for work daily.
One of the reasons for looking at the principle of work for benefits is the question of how to put people in a frame of mind whereby they are in a position to apply for jobs and be enthusiastic about getting them. Many questions need to be examined: whether working for benefits would be part-time or full-time, whether it would be compulsory or voluntary and whether it would apply to everybody or only to those who have been unemployed for some time.
We need to challenge things. It was President Kennedy who said:
Change is the law of life, and those who only think of the present and the past are certain to miss the future.
He had vision and imagination in many other areas. We are right to challenge the principles, think the unthinkable and hope to do the unthinkable. That is the way in which we should move forward.
There has been a creeping dependency over many years which the Government have sought to reverse in the past 14 years. That creeping dependency is not desirable.


Moreover, it is something which we cannot support. I support the Government's social security initiatives as part of the package to put those problems right. I will be supporting the Government on the order tonight.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: In the past two and a half hours we have heard several wide-ranging and deeply intellectual speeches from people who are plainly formidably expert on social security matters. As I am sure you know, Madam Speaker, I am not an expert on social security. But as a Back-Bench Member of Parliament I am worried for those constituents of mine who, for reasons beyond their control, are unable to defend themselves against the irregularities that arise in their dealings with the local Benefits Agency offices. I shall use some examples to show the need for reviews of the social security system.
All the examples that I shall use come from my two most recent surgeries. One involved a man living in Port Glasgow who told me that he applied for disability living allowance in May 1992. He brought to my surgery a formal acknowledgement of his application dated 1 June 1992. He has heard nothing from Blackpool since. I find that disgraceful.

Mr. Winnick: That is fairly common.

Dr. Godman: Whether it is common or not, it is a matter of deep regret for my constituent.
Another example concerns a young girl who came to see me at my constituency surgery. She is 17 and four months pregnant. Her parents put her out of the house when she announced that she was pregnant. She refused an abortion. She is living in a house which is much too big for her in a part of my constituency where the houses are known as "difficult to let".
The young girl went along to the local benefits office in Port Glasgow to ask for help in her difficult circumstances. She was turned away because she was not in receipt of income support. She is undergoing youth training. Why did not one of the officials sit the girl down—a girl is what she is; she is 17 years old—and say, "We cannot pay you because of the harsh regulations governing payments from the social fund. You are not on income support. But did you know that if you are in such difficulties you can go along to the local social work department?" The hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that, under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, a social worker may have been able to give the girl some financial assistance. Why was not the girl given that advice?
Another example of the failure of the state to protect individuals who find themselves in difficult circumstances is the case of a constituent of mine who is suffering from asbestosis. He is deeply ill, like many of the sufferers whom one finds in shipbuilding constituencies for reasons that I do not need to spell out to the House. He has been advised that he needs an independent medical examination. The man is living in poverty, but he is expected to find the money for that independent medical examination which is required by the Department.
I was grateful to the Minister for saying that he would look into this difficulty for men and women suffering from asbestosis. As you know, Madam Speaker, in almost every

case asbestosis is terminal. I am pleased to say that at long last the law in Scotland has been brought into line with English legislation, in that the claim no longer dies when the victim dies. We are grateful for some small mercies.
I raised the question of invalidity benefit earlier with t he Secretary of State. He courteously gave way and listened tolerantly to what I had to say. If any benefit needs to be subjected to a tough-minded review, it is invalidity benefit.
Under United Kingdom law, a women loses invalidity benefit at the age of 60 and is given a retirement pension instead. In a case heard in Liverpool, Commissioner Skinner decided that Mrs. Rose Graham had suffered sexual discrimination vis-a-vis EC directive 79/7/EEC. The Secretary of State is appealing against the Secretary of State. The assistant chief adjudication officer telephoned me last summer to tell me that that was the case and I have received correspondence from Ministers on the subject.
The social security commissioner decided that United Kingdom social security law discriminates against women, and that they should be treated in the same way as men when in receipt of invalidity benefit. On the basis of the Liverpool case, I made representations on behalf of a constituent, Mrs. McLatchie, whose invalidity benefit was restored plus the payment of arrears. That was fine and good, and I thought that the Government were acknowledging that EC law has supremacy over our legislation. They are, however, appealing to the English Court of Appeal.
I organised a take-up campaign on behalf of constituents caught in the same trap and about 400 made late appeals. They have all been told that they cannot be paid, despite the fact that Mrs. McLatchie was paid. Incidentally, one of my constituents is going to take the Government to the sheriff court, because under Scots law it is argued that she should receive her money.
I wrote to the then European Social Commissioner, Mrs. Papandreou, formally to request that she initiate proceedings at the European Court of Justice against the Government for that act of gross sexual discrimination. Mrs. Papandreou has gone, but I received a response from the acting director-general, Steffen Smidt, who said:
With reference to Mrs. Thomas case, I can inform you that there is actually a proceeding before the Court of Justice of the European Community deferred by the House of Lords on the basis of Article 177 of the Treaty of Rome.
That article enables a national court to refer a case to the European Court of Justice, and that has profound implications for any review of social security systems throughout the European Community, let alone in this place.
The letter continues:
This case concerns Mrs. Thomas and four other persons"—
two are male: Mr. Murphy and Mr. Morley.
Hearings took place in November 1992, and the Commission is awaiting with the greatest of interest the forthcoming judgements.
At this stage, the Commission has to wait for the above judgement before introducing any proceedings for infringement against the Government of the United Kingdom.
As I said in an intervention in the speech of the Secretary of State, the Advocate-General has proffered his opinion to his colleagues. The other judges may well choose to reject his recommendations, but I suspect that the omens are not good for the Government. If his colleagues accept his recommendations, it will cost the Department of Social Security dear, as more than 400 people in my constituency have appealed.
It seems that, in future, people who believe that they have a genuine grievance against the Department of Social Security, and hence the Government, may, under the Maastricht treaty—if it is resuscitated by the second Danish referendum—have the right to take the Government to a domestic court. Those people will not have to undertake the long and winding road to Luxembourg but can take the Government to a domestic court because of their perceived failure to protect those people's interests.
In its 15th report for the 1991–92 Session, on page 49, paragraph 34, the Select Committee on European Community Legislation stated:
There is now a new factor. The jurisprudence of the Court has developed to a point where it has recognised a right for individuals (in carefully defined circumstances) to sue their Member States in their national courts for damages flowing from non-implementation of obligations intended for their protection. In relation to obligations of this nature, the prospect of a flood of actions in national courts may be a greater deterrent to dilatory Member States than the prospect of a simple fine.
In future, people who feel that they have a legitimate grievance against the Government for their failure to protect them under social security legislation may take the Government to court. Those people can use the European Court of Justice as a tactical convenience. The provision is contained in the Maastricht treaty. I make no apology for attempting to use the European Court of Justice for tactical convenience to protect several hundreds of my constituents whose invalidity benefit was stopped when they reached the age of 60, which is the present position.
When the learned men sitting in Luxembourg decide that the Government are guilty of sexual discrimination when paying invalidity benefit, it may result not in reductions in the social security budget, but in the problem of where to find the extra money to pay the scores of thousands of women who will be involved. I look forward to that decision, about which I am fairly optimistic. No doubt Ministers are hoping that my optimism is misplaced and believe that I should not place too much reliance on the European Court of Justice. However, if Ministers and Government officials fail to protect my constituents, I shall willingly use the European Court of Justice and our national courts—if the Maastricht treaty is resuscitated by the Danes—to protect my constituents.
Even the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire is going to conduct a review of the social security system. The reviewers, whether professors or Department of Social Security officials, may have to take cognisance of the role of the European Court of Justice in determining, by way

of European Community legislation, what is fair and proper in the administration of individual social security systems in the European Community—soon to be called the European union, I believe. That is an important subject, especially for hon. Members like me who are not experts but have to defend constituents' interests.
The three examples that I gave of constituents who came to my surgery involved people caught in deep poverty. I hope that this evening the Minister will respond sympathetically to those examples.

Mr. Keith Bradley: This has been a reflective and wide-ranging debate. I will try to comply with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) that we stick to the reflective mood and do not lapse into crude oratory. I shall try to avoid that temptation.
When the uprating statement was made, it was with great relief that we heard that benefits are to be protected. There was always a suspicion that sooner or later the social security budget would come under close scrutiny. Although there is the gloss of a general review of the whole benefit system, it has to be made clear that there is a suspicion—I say no more than that—that the review is based on the need to get the Government out of the economic mess that they have got themselves into—
It being Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.)
MADAM SPEAKER then put the Question which she was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates &c.).

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1992–93

Resolved,
That a further sum not exceeding £1,893,716,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for civil services for the year ending on 31st March 1993, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 431 of Session 1992–93.
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Michael Portillo, Mr. Stephen Dorrell, Sir John Cope and Mr. Anthony Nelson.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL

Mr. Stephen Dorrell accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain funds out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31 March 1993: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 128.]

Social Security

Question again proposed.

Mr. Bradley: Time is even shorter now and I will press on quickly. As I was saying, the Government are trying to find a way out of their economic mismanagement. While the benefit uprating announcement was welcome, it did no more than preserve the status quo for many groups of beneficiaries, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said; it did not address the issue of real improvements in benefits for many people, nor will it give help to the many groups who are denied entitlement to benefit. None of those benefits are being restored.
We should not rely on press speculation, but it is already clear that one early target for review by the Government will be invalidity benefit. The likelihood that taxation of that benefit is on the agenda means that many disabled people face further anxiety while they await the outcome of the review. If taxation of invalidity benefit is introduced, disabled people will lose because they are on low incomes.
The average invalidity beneifit in March 1991 was £67–90. Recent surveys by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that disabled people are less likely to find work. Additionally, they incur extra costs because of their disability. They should not be further disadvantaged. My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden referred to the opting-out process in the review, which has not been denied by the Secretary of State. The opportunity for private provision for disabled people is more limited, partly because of their individual risk assessment and the cost of premiums. We have to examine that carefully.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: rose—

Mr. Bradley: I think that the hon. Gentleman has just come into the Chamber; because of the time availabe, it would be inappropriate to give way.
Disabled people are just one group who will be worried about the results of the review. I hope that in his reply to the debate the Minister will be able to give assurances to such groups.
The uprating statement did not bring relief to our faces because many people did not get the good news that their benefits were being restored. We should not be fooled by the view that the basic increase in basic state retirement pension is so generous that elderly people will have an income which will enable them to live happily, with finance being no problem.
If we put the retirement pension into context, average pension income has risen in real terms, but it does not reflect a good picture of the overall distribution of income. About 9.6 million of our 10.6 million pensioners are currently receiving state pension, either through national insurance pension, income support, or a combination of the two. Of those, in 1990 72 per cent. were among the two fifths of households with the lowest disposable income. Among the one fifth of all households with the lowest disposable income in 1989, 51 per cent. were retired people.
In 1991–92 the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that 1,425,000 families were headed by pensioners in receipt of income support. Of those, 105,000 were entirely

dependent on income support—but the income support levels are not generous. It is not surprising that pensioners feel that an actual increase of a mere £2 a week is derisory and is not a reflection of their real costs. One pensioner told me that the £2 increase merely covered the increase in the window cleaning bill. We should not be fooled into believing that the uprating is so generous that many pensioners will not continue to live in abject poverty.
We must recognise that a crucial group of people will not benefit from the uprating statement, and that is 16 and 17–year-olds who are denied the right to benefit. The Government's guarantee of a place on a training scheme has proved woefully inadequate. Thousands of young people have not had the opportunity of a place on a training scheme, yet they are still denied the right to benefit. Many organisations are now talking about the problems of poverty among 16 and 17–year-olds. For example, Youthaid estimates that 124,700 16 and 17–year-olds are unemployed and have no place on a training scheme, and 97,000 of those are not receiving any benefit or payment.
It is clear from the evidence that that places an additional burden on the families of that group of youngsters. The poverty of the 16 or 17–year-old is being transferred back into the poverty of the family. In many cases, that has led to the break-up of the family because it cannot afford the extra burden of a 16 or 17–year-old who is denied a proper training place or any benefit. I hope that the Government will reconsider the denial of benefit to that very vulnerable group of people.
I want quickly to deal with the position of disabled people and their carers, which was eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). I want to draw a particular point to the Minister's attention and I hope that he will be able to clarify the matter when he replies to the debate. As he knows, the administrative chaos in the introduction of the disabled living allowance has caused great anxiety and hardship for thousands of disabled people. That was compounded by the sudden ending of applications to the independent living fund. It is my understanding that unless disabled people were in receipt of DLA, they could not claim from the ILF. They were doubly disadvantaged because of the chaos in the administration of DLA.
In another place, in response to a question only yesterday by Baroness Hollis, Lord Henley said that individuals did not have to be in receipt of disability living allowance to receive an award from the independent living fund. Will the Minister confirm that, if people subsequently receive disability living allowance and had applied before the cut-off date to the independent living fund, they will still have the opportunity to obtain an award from the ILF? Lord Henley's statement did not make the position clear. Correspondence with the ILF states that people have to be in receipt of DLA, not simply to have applied for it. If that is the case, people should not have been denied the right to apply to the fund. Clearly, that needs to be rectified, and I hope that the Minister will respond.
I reinforce the comments of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire in relation to those who care for the disabled. A study by the Royal College of Nursing and the Spastics Society published today acknowledges yet again the valuable work done by carers. Studies estimate that the savings enjoyed by the state as a consequence of


the work of informal carers is £24 billion per year. It is unacceptable that carers should be so poorly recompensed for the work that they do.
It is clear that the amount of money spent on care is infinitesimal. Financial support for carers currently accounts for 0.02 per cent. of the total social security budget, and invalid care allowance represents only 10.69 per cent. of national average earnings. That is scandalously low. Is it not time that the Government acknowledged the value of carers and their work and ensured that their efforts are recognised as a job of work and properly recompensed? There is no suggestion that carers demand to be recognised in that way—they work willingly—but we should accept that we owe a debt to those people for the savings that they make for the state.
Little has been said this evening of the problems with the social fund. The Department's own study, "Evaluating the Social Fund", highlights the fact that 60.5 per cent. of the survey sample had to cut back on food and living expenses, 46.6 per cent. cut back on clothing, and 20.6 per cent. on paying bills. Those on income support and at the lowest income level who have to apply to the social fund cannot afford such cutbacks. It is not good enough for the Government to say that they are considering the Department's report. They commissioned it, and they have had time enough to evaluate it, state their considered view, and say what they mean to do. The Government surely cannot be satisfied from that study that all is well.
In Committee this morning, debating a social security benefits statutory instrument on the preserved rights of individuals in residential care, the point was made that, despite uprating, there is overwhelming evidence that the care gap between income support levels and the fees charged for residential care is growing massively. Where people with so-called preserved income support rights are currently in residential care, the new community care legislation makes the local authority responsible for ensuring the future funding of that arrangement. That could lead to potential evictions from residential homes or, more probably, such homes going out of business. If that happens, those individuals will not enjoy the protection of preserved rights.
Will the Minister say how he views the future uprating of benefits against those costs? During the progress of the Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe)—now the Under-Secretary of State—clearly recognised that problem and led an effective campaign which led to the acceptance of a new clause. Unfortunately, it did not end up in the Bill—but we will not go into the reasons for that. That problem has not gone away, and we must be sure that the Department recognises that and will bring forward proper provisions.
I believe that in recent years—whatever the uprating has been in terms of inflation—there has been a dramatic increase in the number of households and individuals facing debt problems. More than half a million households have serious multiple debts, and are in arrears to three or more creditors. That it because income levels for those on benefit are still too low. Many have had to turn to credit companies. I do not wish to be parochial, but a survey of Money Advice clients in Greater Manchester revealed that

two of the main contributory factors to financial difficulties were unemployment and low incomes—both of which have increased under the present Government.
I hope that the Government will address those two important issues today. The only real way forward is to bring about a move back towards full employment, in the meantime recognising that a proper level of benefit is necessary to ensure that low-income families do not suffer the multiple debts that they are currently experiencing.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): This has been an important debate —partly because we are disposing of some £2–5 billion of taxpayers' money, and partly because social security legislation touches on those in the greatest need. We should debate closely and carefully the way in which the money is spent. Things may change now that I am on my feet, but so far this has been a high-quality, thoughtful debate: I feel that it deserves a large audience, and more participation by hon. Members, than it has achieved—but we are aware of the great attraction that social security matters hold for many of our colleagues.
In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garsgadden (Mr. Dewar) referred to the success of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security in the public expenditure survey which was concluded last year. Anyone who imagines that discussions between my right hon. Friend and myself and our dear and close friends in the Treasury are cosy fireside chats is very much mistaken; it was a tough public-expenditure round, and I do not think that my right hon. Friend has been sufficiently congratulated on the successful outcome that he achieved—a very full uprating of benefits across the board, and no increase in national insurance contributions. I consider that a remarkable achievement.
We are now faced with the issue of a long-term review of the pattern of social security. Given the size of the social security budget and its potential to increase, I do not think that anyone should be surprised if from time to time, instead of examining the pattern of expenditure year by year, we should take a more fundamental look at the way in which money is going, and decide whether the current pattern is appropriate for the next few years. I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Croydon, North-west (Mr. Wicks)—welcome the news of a fundamental review.
I should like to say more about that, but I want to respond to a number of the points that have been raised. I shall not be able to cover all of them in the time available, but I shall consider them carefully tomorrow, when I have read Hansard.
I understand the anxieties that are felt about the important question of the independent living fund. The fund was originally introduced as a transitional measure, to operate until the introduction of the care in the community measures. Those measures are to be introduced at the beginning of April. During its short life, the fund has been a remarkable success. In the first year, expenditure ran to about £1 million; in the current year, it is approaching £100 million. In April, when the fund trust is ended and cases are handed over to a successor body, some 22,000 severely disabled people will constitute the case load.
Many hon. Members who follow these matters will be aware of the situation, but I should like to make it absolutely clear that we intend, in the very near future, to legislate to replace the independent living fund with two new trusts. One of these will take on the handling of the case load of 22,000 with freedom, if the care needs of individuals increase—as, sadly, they often do—to increase the level of payments in those cases. The other trust, which will operate in tandem with local authorities, will be in a position to top up with cash, where the services that local authorities provide cannot meet the full care costs of the more severely disabled people. Obviously, we shall have to see how this works in practice, but I believe that we have the right formula. That main responsibility for the provision of the community care packages that disabled and elderly people will need must lie with local authorities. In the case of the most severely disabled people, there is an argument for continuing an independent living fund that can operate in conjunction with the local authorities, and we shall so legislate.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) mentioned the interaction between the independent living fund and the delays in the payment of disability living allowance. I shall seek, in the course of my reply, to address that matter. It would have been open to the trustees of the independent living fund, before deciding to cease taking claims with a view to having an orderly hand-over of cases to the new trust in April, to deem someone who had applied for disability living allowance to have been in receipt of it, and therefore to be eligible for help through the independent living fund. In practice, that did not happen, but the option was available. The trustees were living within a budget. There were other constraints upon them. I hope that by April, when the two funds are operating, a number of people who might very well have applied if the fund had not been closed down for the purpose of achieving an orderly takeover will be able to apply for help from the new independent living fund.
It is not surprising that the social fund too has been mentioned, although it is surprising that it was referred to only in the opening and closing speeches by the Opposition. I understand the great interest in the whole operation of the social fund and its importance in addressing the exceptional circumstances and exceptional need at the fringes of the social security system. The amount involved is close to £80 billion a year. Since the invention of the pattern of social security, there has always been a need for some provision at the fringes that cannot be coped with in a regulated way. In these cases, discretion is absolutely essential. We have had the report by the social policy research unit of York university, the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Government's own consideration of the pattern of the social fund.
It is obvious that very soon the Government will have to announce how they see the future of the fund. It was introduced just about the time that I came to the Department. Since then a number of things have struck me very clearly. One is the relative success of loans. The SPRU report drew particular attention to the way in which the concept of loans has gained acceptance, following a very hostile initial approach. There is now increasing acceptance, on the part of people who need help form the social fund, that loans are a sensible way of tackling many of their needs.
There have been about 1 million community care grants and about 5.5 million loans since the social fund started. The importance of loans lies in the fact that a given amount of money can be used successively to help a number of people. Thus, money can be put to much better use by being recycled.

Mr. Dewar: The Minister knows that there is a dispute about the cash-limiting effect of these provisions. On the specific point about loans, may I ask him if he is prepared to have a look at the question of repayment periods? Weekly deductions from benefit are often very high—or genuinely appear to the person concerned to be very high —and loans are sometimes refused on that ground.

Mr. Scott: I cannot go further than I have, but that is one of the matters that we shall consider when we make our announcements about the social fund.
A number of hon. Members asked about delays with the disability living allowance. I face an uncomfortable two hours tomorrow morning before the Select Committee on Social Security, which perhaps is the best forum to deal with that in detail. I want to pay tribute to the staff. I reiterate my regret about the distress that a number of claimants felt about the delay in the delivery of DLA, but the staff have done extremely well to deal with I million claims since DLA was introduced, and nearly I million claims have been cleared by staff. I see that the Chairman of the Select Committee has joined us now, and I shall look forward to expanding rather more on that topic tomorrow.

Dr. Godman: How long does it normally take for a commissioner's decision to be acted on by officers of the Department?

Mr. Scott: Assuming that the commissioner's decision is not appealed, it would operate very quickly. The hon. Gentleman raised a series of individual cases to which I cannot reply this evening, but I undertake to consider each one to see what lessons the Department can learn.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) asked about invalidity benefit and where the projected savings of £240 million would come from. They will come from improving the medical controls over the delivery of invalidity benefit. People invited to medical examinations for invalidity benefit will be given more notice and will be asked for reasons if they feel that they cannot attend. They will be warned that failure to attend without giving proper notice may lead to their losing benefit and adjudication officers will have power to disqualify in those circumstances.
However, if there is a good cause for a further examination, we hope that they will be held more quickly —normally within six weeks—and we shall ask examining doctors to produce more comprehensive reports than hitherto. We believe that the savings that we have forecast will result from that. It is £240 million over the three years of the survey period, running at £50 million, £90 million, and £100 million over those three years.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire asked about take-up. We are concerned to ensure maximum take-up of the benefits that we make available .We estimate that £9 of every £10 of income-related benefits is taken up, and four out of five people take up the benefits to which they are entitled.
The Government have an unparalleled record on carers. We have a very good record on the take up of invalid care allowance, on the carers' premium and on other support for carers. Caring is likely to move substantially up the political agenda in forthcoming years. We shall watch that with much care to see what we can do within the resources available. I pay tribute to the huge army of carers, who contribute to ensuring the quality of life of many elderly and disabled people in our society.

Mr. Frank Field: The Minister has highlighted the importance of carers, to whom both sides of the House attach similar importance. When the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) was speaking for the Government this evening he said that the review will save money for taxpayers and redistribute resources. When there is a redistribution rather than tax cuts, where will carers stand in the pecking order for the largesse?

Mr. Scott: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who well understands the complexity of the social security system and the shifting sands of demand within it, expects me to issue a batting order. I mentioned the increasing awareness of the role of carers which has been shown by the Government and other providers. We have recognised that role more than any previous Government, and I shall certainly not be drawn into issuing a batting order, despite my love of cricketing analogies.
In the past year, social security has been increasingly recognised as a vital factor in the lives of millions of our fellow citizens. We need to be fair to those who rely on benefits, but my right hon. Friend and I are also conscious of the fact that we have a responsibility to the taxpayers who provide the £80 billion a year that we spend on benefits.
I commend the orders to the House. We are considering five pieces of legislation which will ensure that the social security system will work effectively next year. We are setting benefit rates, providing increases to the guaranteed minimum pensions and making the normal adjustments to national insurance contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Resolved,
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Resolved,
That the draft Statutory Sick Pay (Rate of Payment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Resolved,
That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

St. Albans Hospital

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Mr. James Clappison: I welcome the opportunity to raise the issue of St. Albans hospital and the centralisation of acute services in north-west Hertfordshire. It is a subject of intense interest to the residents of St. Albans. I share that interest because, although the hospital is not in my constituency, it serves many of my constituents, especially those in London Colney. On the same basis, my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) also shares our concern, as does my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley) whose constituency contains the hospital.
Since the health authority first unveiled the proposals to centralise the services in 1990, with their consequent effect on St. Albans hospital, my right hon. Friend has been at the forefront of a long and vigorous campaign to preserve as many services as possible for the residents of St. Albans. At every turn and with exhaustive efforts, he has fought on behalf of the people of St. Albans, reflecting their great concern about the hospital services.
This is a matter of local pride and concern. Local people are worried about the distances entailed in having to travel to Hemel Hempstead and the attendant risks in the case of accidents. Their concern reflects the esteem in which the services and professionals at the hospital are held. I wish to refer in particular to the paediatric services and St. Julian's ward, which are the subject of much affection and esteem.
When the decision was finally taken in December last year to centralise the services and to move some from St. Albans to Hemel Hempstead, there was great disappoint-ment in St. Albans. It would be hard to overestimate the disappointment which has been manifested on several demonstrations and marches, all of which were properly conducted. Similar anxiety has been expressed by several groups in the district, local churches and the community health council. My right hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans shares that feeling.
It must be said that when the decision was taken, due weight was given to the professional opinions of the consultants who serve St. Albans hospital as to the best way to save high-quality services in Hemel Hempstead and St. Albans.
On the other side of the argument, I draw attention to the strength of local feelings and suggest that weight could also be given to them. Local feelings run deep indeed in St. Albans, and they are conditioned by the fact that, although the town has retained many important services in its hospital, including a 60-bed elective surgery unit, nevertheless, a substantial number of beds have been lost as the hospital previously had 293 beds. It has lost its maternity, gynaecological and paediatric services and—most significantly—from 8 March it will lose the accident and emergency services in the full form in which they now exist.
I call urgent attention to that loss. It is the focus of great concern, and people are wondering exactly what accident and emergency provision in St. Albans will be left with after 8 March. There is a strong case for taking a long hard look at that provision. Under the present proposals, after


8 March there will be no service at all for six weeks, and then a nurse practitioner-led service, treating minor accident and emergency cases, will start. I urge that urgent attention be paid to the strong case for upgrading that service to a much higher level.
The health authority compiled some figures in a survey carried out in 1991 and released in August 1992, which revealed that, of the 35,000 or so attendances at St. Albans hospital, about 6,500—about 18 per cent. of the total—could have been met in that year by a nurse practitioner service. So a relatively small proportion of the cases that were being treated at St. Albans hospital would be suitable for the intended level of service.
The survey also considered how many of those cases would have been dealt with by a doctor-led service, involving either a general practitioner or some other suitably experienced and qualified doctor. It was found that, of the 35,000 attendances, a further 57 per cent.—or 20,000 cases—could have been met by such a service. That means that about 75 per cent. of the total attendances at the hospital that year could have been dealt with by a doctor-led service. That would make a great difference.
A doctor-led service would be an important facility for people in St. Albans, and save many of them a great deal of travelling. It would also save much of the pressure that would otherwise fall on the service at Hemel Hempstead. There are strong grounds for such a service to be introduced in St. Albans.
In making that suggestion, I am fortified by the fact that such a proposal was ventilated by the health authority in a leaflet issued in August 1992, which said:
We hope to involve local general practitioners in making the best use of the minor accident treatment unit".
Furthermore, last October the chief executive of the North West Hertfordshire health authority produced another document, which was intended to be the basis for local discussions leading to health authority recommendations. It suggested that
the unit should be nurse practitioner, but this would not preclude GP involvement".
I therefore suggest that such an upgraded service is already in the health authority's mind. There is an urgent case for the service to be upgraded to that level, to provide a better service for the people of St. Albans.
If this is a question of resources being made available for the provision of such a unit, the argument is strong and the case is clear that those resources should be provided for the people of St. Albans. They should be made available for a doctor-led unit, which would be open on the same 24-hour basis as the former accident and emergency unit. Before implementation, that unit should be the subject of full consultations with the general practitioners in St. Albans to ascertain the part that they wish to play and whether they wish to take the reins of the accident and treatment service, or whether they feel that it would be best served by some other form of suitably qualified and experienced doctors.
Perhaps most urgently of all, I call attention to the six-week interval that will ensue when the full accident and emergency service is closed on 18 March. With the plans as they stand, for those six weeks there will be no accident and emergency provision in St. Albans. The issue has been put to the health authority, which has said that the six weeks is needed for nurse retraining. I suggest that that is not a satisfactory explanation and that training could be provided in a way that would enable the service to be

continued. The explanation is not a satisfactory reflection on the health authority. Great concern is being caused to the residents of St. Albans. They are to lose their accident and emergency service, and it would seem that they are not to have any form of transitional service for the following six weeks.
There are several other matters that are of great concern to my constituents in London Colney and elsewhere, including the other residents of St. Albans. Important issues remain to be resolved, including transport to Hemel Hempstead. Many patients have to use public transport or private transport to reach a hospital, but many of my constituents will be faced with a difficult journey. Some of them will have to endure two such journeys. I have much in mind my constituents in London Colney, who will have to travel into St. Albans and then on to Hemel Hempstead.
I appreciate that the health authority has considered these matters and that it proposes to provide a bus service from the centre of St. Albans to the hospital at Hemel Hempstead, but that service will operate for only certain hours of the day. It may be suitable for those who are visiting the hospital, but it will not be satisfactory for casualty patients or for those who wish for any other reason to use the hospital outside the hours of the service. I hope that attention will be given to that and to the predicament of elderly people. I know that there are many elderly people in London Colney and the rest of St. Albans who use the hospital there. I am mindful of the journeys that they will have to undertake. I invite the health authority to give special consideration to those people a nd the arduous nature of the journeys that they will have to undertake.
There is concern that there should be a continuation of maternity services at St. Albans. These services, in their full form, are to be centralised at Hemel Hempstead. What level of service will remain at St. Albans? There is uncertainty about that because different suggestions have been made. I urge that the health authority should follow the recommendations that are set out in the report that was specially commissioned to examine maternity services in St. Albans under Dr. Elizabeth Scott. I believe that it should implement as many of those recommendations as possible, especially those that relate to community midwifery, which were considered to be extremely valuable by the authoress of the report.
I have referred to several important issues for the people of St. Albans, including my constituents in London Colney. There is a great sense of disappointment, as there would naturally be in any district at the loss of such a hospital. Much local concern arises from that.
I know that St. Albans residents of all shades of opinion are united in wanting their hospital to remain in the form, and with the level of service, to which they are accustomed. I invite the House to consider the views of those local residents. We must take into account the views of the users of our services and give due weight to their opinions. So strongly expressed are the opinions of those in St. Albans at present that I can only urge the House to give full weight to them, and can only ask for the maximum possible provision to be given for accident and emergency and for other services remaining in St. Albans. The people will at least be able to feel that, although their hospital has been changed and its services have been centralised, they still


retain high-quality and safe services. That is the very least that I ask on behalf of the residents of St. Albans this evening.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) for raising this important issue. The debate gives me the opportunity to place on record the reasons for the decisions which have been arrived at and also to set out what I believe to be some of the advantages which will accrue from North West Hertfordshire health authority's proposals for centralising acute services within the district. I hope, too, that I can allay some of the concerns that my hon. Friend has shared with the House this evening.
The problems of the health authority's acute services are, of course, long standing. In November 1989, the health authority began a comprehensive review of its acute services, as it was becoming an increasingly untenable proposition to continue to provide the full range of acute services on two hospital sites—at Hemel Hempstead General and St. Albans City hospitals. The need for change was dominated by a concern for quality and safety of care together with the ability to ensure that the provision of viable, cost-effective services was maintained. The key elements of such a service were defined as recruitment and retention of specialist skilled staff, accredited junior doctor posts with the right mix of volume and experience, and the optimum use of resources, both revenue and capital.
There were a number of compelling reasons for change. Action needed to be taken to ensure that the unit, in competing with other hospitals for limited numbers of staff, was in the best possible position to recruit extra nurses, midwives and support workers. To reduce junior doctors' hours, additional doctors would be required across both hospital sites. However, the number of posts recognised for training is strictly regulated by the Department of Health and the royal colleges because of the need for a full range of experience. Posts not recognised for training do not attract good staff. Moreover, experience was showing that the two hospitals could not attract junior staff to existing posts.
There was also the issue of the optimum size for a viable unit and the need to concentrate expertise to provide good quality care. The unit has failed to attract specialist services which it might otherwise have been expected to attract because neither St. Albans nor Hemel could sustain such services in individual hospitals.
Finally, there is a continuing need to replace dilapidated building stock with appropriate new facilities designed to meet the demands of modern medical techniques and procedures.
The report of the 1989 review concluded that accident and emergency services, paediatrics and maternity services could not be replicated efficiently and safely on two sites, only a few miles apart, within the district. It was important to achieve the concentration of expensive and sophisticated diagnostic and treatment technology and highly trained staff necessary for all those services and, indeed, to address concerns about the accreditation of medical posts and the supervision of junior doctors. Two hospitals, each

attempting to provide the same services and competing for staff, would represent a diminished service, becoming unsafe and eventually uneconomic.
In 1990, following full public consultation, the health authority submitted proposals to the Department of Health, which recommended the centralisation of most acute services on one site. Hemel Hempstead was chosen because the existing buildings at Hemel could better cope with the additional work load. The implications of the proposals for the residents of St. Albans were considered carefully by officials in my Department over several months.
In January 1992, my predecessor rejected the overall proposals on the grounds that they did not give sufficient weight to the need for local access to hospital services for St. Albans residents. However, he agreed that acute accident and emergency services could be centralised in Hemel Hempstead, accepting the clear evidence that that would offer a higher quality and, above all, safer service to all residents of the district.
My predecessor also approved the centralisation of in-patient maternity services at Hemel. Maternity services had been temporarily centralised at St. Albans in 1989. They are now housed in an excellent new consultant maternity unit in Hemel Hempstead.
My predecessor also gave approval of the establishment of an elective surgical unit in St. Albans, but asked the health authority to draw up detailed proposals which would maximise services to patients in St. Albans. He asked the health authority to consider plans for the provision of services at St. Albans to treat the majority of minor accidents and examine models of maternity provision—general practitioner or midwife-led—which would respect the understandable wishes of pregnant women in St. Albans not to have to travel to Hemel Hempstead for delivery unless absolutely necessary.
I must emphasise that my predecessor's decision did not challenge the concept of centralisation. I am convinced by the arguments in favour of centralisation, especially in the interests of safety, quality and efficiency for the district as a whole. The concern then was to find a configuration of services which allowed major acute and emergency services to be provided on one site, but which still retained a wide range of services for the majority of local residents at the other.
The health authority prepared its response in the light of my predecessor's letter and, having tested public reaction, submitted revised proposals to my Department in October 1992. I gave those proposals careful consideration and visited the district to see the services provided, assess the impact of the revised proposals and hear at first hand the views of the local people—the patients, consultants and others.
I was satisfied that the health authority had not only responded to my predecessor's request for reconsideration but adapted the original proposals as far as possible in the light of public concern. I believe that the health authority had demonstrated cost-effectiveness, increased quality and safety in its revised proposals and that the district as a whole stood to benefit. I therefore approved phase 1 of the scheme.
I will briefly outline the health authority's revised proposals. They provide for additional staffing, equipment and training for the community midwifery service so that home births can be offered as an option to women who are assessed to be at low risk of complications and for


improvements in antenatal care provision in St. Albans with the provision of an antenatal day care unit there. Those recommendations enhance the centralised inpatient service provided at Hemel Hempstead and ensure that a high quality maternity service is provided for all mothers in north-west Hertfordshire.
The proposals also provide for the creation in St. Albans of a new elective surgical unit of 60 beds in the Moynihan block and a new day care unit in the main theatre complex in the Gloucester wing. Those proposals maximise theatre utilisation and provide capacity for up to 7,000 in-patients per annum at St. Albans City hospital. Most importantly, those plans are sufficiently flexible to allow for an increase in the number of elective beds in line with the demands of purchasers.
A project team led by the unit's director of quality assurance has now been established to oversee the development of a minor accident treatment unit, and I have noted carefully the remarks of my hon. Friend about that. Initially, the unit will be run by nurse practitioners and operate between the hours of 9 am and 9 pm, seven days a week.
That will provide a valuable service by greatly increasing the number of minor accident cases which can be treated in St. Albans rather than in the major accident and emergency department at Hemel Hempstead. It will provide much speedier treatment of a range of minor accidents and injuries for the residents of St. Albans. Whether that can be upgraded to, for example, a GP-led service, depends very much on the attitude of local GPs. I am pleased to say that the health authority is in discussion with local GPs and that it seems likely that the service can, indeed, be expanded. Having said that, I note what my hon. Friend said about other features of the arrangement and about the six weeks following the closure.
In-patient paediatric services are now concentrated on the Hemel Hempstead general hospital site. The concentration of services has allowed the unit to satisfy itself and the local population that a safe and good quality service can be provided. As a consequence, nurse staffing levels, particularly the availability of RSCNs, have improved. On medical staffing the service is now fully supported by permanent medical staff rather than a series of short-term locum doctors. The consultant paediatri-cians can now focus their availability to deal with emergencies on the one site, where both paediatrics and the special care baby unit are located.
Out-patient children's services continue to be available on the St. Albans city hospital site. In addition, arrangements are also in place for children to attend St. Albans for the removal of dressings, and so on. In addition, from 1 April this year the unit plans to offer a monthly paediatric day surgery service for children from the St. Albans area.
I am, of course, aware that public opinion, especially in the eastern part of the district, has remained antagonistic to the proposals. It was largely on account of the strength of local feeling that I took the decision to assess the scheme personally, even though the capital investment called for

by the revised proposals is within the limit for the regional health authority to take such a decision without referring to Ministers.
In giving approval to the proposals, I made plain to the health authority the need to gain public confidence by emphasising the benefits of the reconfiguration. I am pleased to note, therefore, that the authority has drawn up comprehensive plans to ensure effective communications to reassure the public about hospital services—for example, by deploying local newspapers to inform the public of the services available to them.
Most public concern has been centred on the closure of the accident and emergency services in St. Albans and the related issue of ambulance services. I am assured that the "blue light" journey times between St. Albans and Hemel Hempstead will not be more than 15 minutes. In any case, ambulances would take urgent cases to the nearest accident and emergency department with the most appropriate facilities. Five hospitals with such facilities ring the district within eight to 16 miles of St. Albans.
In the event of a major accident, there is access to more than 100 paramedics across the two counties. Within the district there are currently 18, a number which will rise to 24—the national target—by 1994. That would represent one out of every two ambulance staff trained as paramedics and a paramedic on every available ambulance. I stress the importance of pre-hospital care in the treatment of accidents and emergencies today.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere said, public concern has focused on the difficulties of access and parking at Hemel Hempstead. I am pleased to report that the health authority has taken positive steps to address those anxieties. Access will eventually be improved by a county and borough council plan for a new spur road and by agreements which will give 250 additional parking places.
Proposals for the provision of an hourly inter-hospital bus service are currently being assessed and the service will become operational from early March. I understand very well the strength of feeling. During the two visits that I made to the district, I was left in no doubt about it by the public reaction. It has also been made known to me by pressure from Members of Parliament, including in particular my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
A certain misunderstanding and misapprehension also exists about the nature of the proposals. Much opposition has focused on the perceived diminution of service, as though the closure of St. Albans hospital were being considered. For the reasons that I have given, nothing could be further from the truth.
In conclusion, I am confident that once the new proposals are clearly communicated and understood they will be of benefit to the residents of north-west Hertfordshire by providing them with a safe and high quality health service of which they can be proud. I hope that all local interested parties can work together with the health authority to ensure the smooth implementation of the proposals.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven o'clock.